User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Blocked

Kumioko, I have been extremely patient here, but the current situation is no longer tenable. I asked you nicely to stop trolling as an IP, but it appears you have no intention of doing that; indeed, you seem proud that you can summon multiple IPs to continue to cause pointless drama with new IPs even while blocked for causing drama with other IPs. You know perfectly well what block evasion is, so I see little choice but to block this account until you agree to knock this off. I have turned off the Wikibreak Enforcer so that you can log in and comment here if you like. 28bytes (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First I want to clarify one thing and I want this to be understood. I was not evading a block. I set the Wikiproject enforcer myself so this isn't block evasion. Its also not sock puppetry. I made a few meaningful edits as IP edits. No big deal. One or 2 editors are upset because some were to Wikipedia space. So what. Doesn't change anything. I also wanted to clarify that making edits as an IP does not make me a troll. The edits were valid and other than the comments on the IP talk page between me and BMK there wasn't any trolling involved. I made valid comments on discussions as an IP. Its not my fault that Ken has a burr in his ass about me editing.

Aside from that, my reputation on this site was already ruined over the last year because some blockhappy admin decided to ignore policy and block the user they felt like rather than the one that broke the policy. So now, I don't really care if I get blocked or not frankly because the community has already repeatedly spit in my face and told me that I am not trustworthy and not wanted. I tried to show them they were wrong but it became clear that was never going to happen so I got tired of fighting it. So now you can just chalk me up as another editor that was and could have continued to be a great asset but instead was screwed over by the community and decided to leave. I may continue to doan edit from time to time as an IP but Kumioko is for all intents and purposes is dead here. You all killed them. And by the Way the 138 IP series you blocked belongs to the Navy so when you block it you are blocking a lot more than just one user. Several hundred thousand actually. But I am sure you don't care about that because Wikipedia doesn't need anymore users right? Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)BTW let me be a symbol of all that is wrong with the toxic culture in this place. How a once (I think) respected editor who was passionate about the project and beleived in its purpose can be completely changed by being shit on by the community enough times. No matter how much an editor does to try and make this place better in the end where just a number and a piece of trash to be thrown away whenever the community feels like. If only the community would treat each other with some respect instead of constantly telling them how shitty they are and how untrustworthy they are we could accomplish so much. I would have and could have edited for a long time had I been treated with an once of respect but because I am not nor will I ever have the admin tools I am just a piece of trash to be shoved down and treated like a second class citizen. Screw this place. I'm sorry I ever started editing. I met a lot of great people here but the culture here is despicable. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the only "burr up my ass" about you is that you apparently think you are in all respects above all rules and policies here, and can do anything you damn well please, the theory appearing to be that because Wikipedia is broken, you can do what you want. You appear to have an extremely high opinion of yourself and your views, which, in retrospect, probably led to your downfall and loss of reputation, not the actions of admins or other editors. You appear to me to be highly unsuited for a collaborative project of this sort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are partially right. At this point I may not be suited for a collaborative project like this because I actually wanted to build an encyclopedia which apparently stopped being the priority of a majority of the users here over time. Now its more important to be political and move pawns around than to collaborate. So you are correct in that respect. You are still missing the point though. I was highly collaborative. I restarted WPUS, started a newsletter, restarted the collaboration and tried to get people to work together for years. All the while trying to cater to all the complaints in a respectful way. But guess what. A lot of editors didn't want to collaborate. They took my questions about wanted to collaborate as a hostile takeover. They screamed and cried and fussed and complained. Dragged me to ANI repeatedly. Started all kinds of discussions and eventually I said the hell with it and gave up trying to make those projects work. No one wants them so why would I continue to waste my time. I thought hell I know how to work in a lot of areas. Maybe I'll request the Admin tools and help out at some places like editing protected templates, CCI, or the various other areas that are always behind and screaming for help. Guess what, they didn't want my help and told me they didn't trust me enough to have the tools. Ok fine, so now I just edit some discussions occassionally, maybe revert a vandal of fix a typo and I'm labelled a troll, a sockpuppet and block evader because I edited as an IP. Ok fine again. Now my accounts blocked, the IP's are blocked and I am not allowed to edit at all. Also fine. This is how Wikipedia treats people. I have seen it to many many editors over the years. We treat people like shit and wonder why so many editors are leaving and why people aren't joining to be editors. Well this is why. Because after years of faithful service this is how their treated. Your right I have a bad attitude, I didn't always, but I do not because of the culture. Fix the culture and you'll fix the attitude. The truly sad thing is I am willing to admit that I have a bad attitude but you and others refuse to admit Wikipedia has a problem that needs to be addressed and blame it on me. But I don't think I am above the rules. What did I do? Edit from an IP because I no longer want to edit from an account? So what. That doesn't make me a sockpuppet, it doesn't make me a troll and it doesn't make me a vandal. To continuously be called these things is both insulting and a lie. Anyway I am done. Block my account or don't. It doesn't really matter because your actions show me what you want from me. Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing that pisses me off more than anything is that you tell me I can't be trusted with the tools and then you have bullies like User:Fram and others than do nothing but bully other editors. Follow them around and look for a reason to block them and get them banned. Who refuse repeatedly to drop the sticks and let things go and instist that they are not a problem. Then they spend their time bullying editors and running them out of the project and the community pats them on the back and congratulates them for getting rid of another content editor, another bot operator or another pesky editor. You have Admins like Sarek who block first and don't bother to ask any questions at all, you have some like Brad101 and Malleus that treat editors like shit but they do a lot of content improvements so you continue to let them be abusive. Then you have Arbcom who does their very best to seemingly choose the worst possible solution seemingly so that people won't submit things to them unless they want a negative outcome. Most of the editors on Arbcom are great and knowledgable and mean well I think. But the Committee in general is a menace and part of the problem here. But then I am a jerk because I call them out. Oh I am being mean and dropping names. I need to be blocked because their admins (well some are). I shouldn't be so mean to Arbcom because they are trying their best. Kumioko (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't block the 138 IPs. I only blocked this account. 28bytes (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Its a rotating proxy account that cycles. The next time I log on it will likely be something else! Its random.Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken pls disengage from editing here or his IP accounts for some time - there is nothing said that is helpful in anyway to the current situation - in fact its putting more fuel on the fire. PLS STOP kicking him while his passed out on the ground. Let it go - remember when this happened to you? Be the better person and walk away.Moxy (talk)

Will do. (But what happened to me bears no resemblance to this situation, it was entirely different.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your right Moxy and that goes for me too. I don't know why this place gets me so angry these days but it does. And then to be called a troll, vandal and sockpuppet? Its just over the top. I know Ken didn't do anything other than be annoyed by my ranting which is understandable. Kumioko (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I personalty just edit articles and stay away from admin boards and other non-article stuff lots of times. When I find myself frustrated with the bureaucracy of this place I just ignore it. Your all alone here and others could care less if your here or not - so do what you do best - edit and disengage from the bureaucracy part of Wiki. As for clean start - I have seen many editors do this and go on to be a great asset - all they did to change was to stay away from the noticeboards. Moxy (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your right in that I'm all alone. Been like that for a while it seems. No one really cares about guilt or innocence. All they care is if you were blocked or not. If I was here for another 10 years someone would still bring up something. Besides I can't help in the areas I want to help in like CCI so its time to forget it. I would never be allowed to do a clean start anyway. Someone would complain that I was block evading, socking or something else. They would probably run around saying this user used to by Kumioko just to be fair or something similar. No need to reply. Not going to be watching this page. Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI

BTW I just wanted to point out that there is another sockpuppet going in the Doncram case. If you all think I was socking then you might want to investigate and block User talk:204.101.237.139. If I was considered socking its clear they are socking too. But since that user isn't me, I doubt it would be considered appropriate to enforce policy on them. Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also User:69.95.203.38 who's only edit is at an Arbcom discussion? Unlikely. Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that's interesting! Both of these 2 IP's edited Wikipedia space just as I did with an IP. Both are likely editors with accounts but no one is complaining about their edits. No one is blocking them. No one has even asking if they have an account. Or checking. That's interesting and I think and I have a hypothesis. No one cares! The same reason it should not have been a big deal that I edited as an IP. I wasn't trying to hide. I wasn't trying to avoid scrutiny and I wasn't trying to sock. I was just making a couple of harmless edits and contributing to a discussion. This is precisely the type of problem I have these days. I wasn't blocked because I was doing something wrong. I was blocked because someone came up with a reason too. I made it intentionally obvious it was me because I knew someone would complain. I was right.

For years I was a good contributor, for years I spent countless hours trying to make this place better but all I got was insulted, bombarded by bad faith comments, drowned in endless discussions from users who would rather show article ownership and protect their little empires that to collaborate. And people wonder why I lost my calm. They wonder why I "suddenly" started acting like this. There was nothing sudden about it. My current state is the culmination of years of abuse by my fellow editors. It is a testament to the toxic behaviors that has rooted itself in our culture. I wanted to help out in areas like CCI, to use the knowledge I gained through my years of experience here to help out, to make this place better, to help reduce some of the long backlogs at many of the forums because we don't have enough experienced people to help out. To help lower the stress level of the other experienced users because there would be one more extremely active participant to help out. I was told no, we don't need your help. We would rather do it ourselves and have a backlog. We don't trust you. We don't want you here. So now, instead of being a contributor, editing articles and building an encyclopedia I am reduced to monologuing on my talk page. Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

For those who might be bored

For those who might be bored:

• The total at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) should be 4 not 3. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Make that 5. Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would also note that the Arbcom should probably block User:Cmach7 as they did with User:Curtaintoad since they are almost identical circumstances. Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Request global block

There was a time (in fact just a year ago) when I would have requested an unblock and fought hard to be allowed back, but not anymore. I tried in the past to get folks to listen and no one cared. Its obvious I am to be treated as a common vandal so here is what I am asking. I want you to perform a global block on my account as it is here in the English Wikipedia. I tried to be an active positive contributor but I just got shit on and treated like a second class citizen so now I want no part of this. I want my account blocked on all Wiki's as it is here please. Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The place to do that is on Meta, not here. (m:SRG) --Rschen7754 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks its done and I removed the edit request template. Kumioko (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to fight particularly hard to be allowed back. All you'd have to do is agree to post as yourself instead of as an IP and I'd unblock you. You're not a vandal, it's just that you're not following the policy on undisclosed alternate accounts; when/if you decide you're willing to follow that policy, I'll be happy to lift the block (as would, I'm sure, many other admins.) But I see you've already posted the global lock request, so I suppose it's a moot point now. I'm sorry you decided to go that route rather than go along with the (in my opinion) quite reasonable request to sign your comments as yourself and not a string of numbers. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore. There was a time when it did, I no longer want to participate as a user. Is that so hard to understand? I would like to do the occasional edit as an IP, even then my edits will be limited as they have been. Because the community lost me as an active editor. They don't deserve to have an active contributor (not just me) that cares about the project. They want editors who piddle and do a few edits, keep their heads down and don't ask questions. That ain't me and never has been nor do I think I am wanted. I am convinced now, more than ever that the general population is more interested in protecting their own POV interests than in building an encyclopedia and that includes the vast majority of Admins.

It all boils down to this. Our users, myself included will only participate if they are treated with respect. If they aren't then they leave. That includes myself. Some of us leave and don't come back and some of us continue to participate in some small way. Its your choice which one I do. I can leave and not come back at all or continue to do edits occasionally as an IP. Frankly I am at the point that I don't care to try and prove myself anymore. If I didn't prove that I believed in the project and I could be trusted in the last 7 years and hundreds of thousands of edits, working on wikiprojects, attending meetups at Museums and other locations and trying to collaborate to make this place better I never will. My 2nd RFA showed that I'll never be allowed to help out any more than an editor yet more and more content is protected. It was a complete insult as was the first one four years ago when it was "easier" to get the tools. I have a lot of experience and wanted to use it but I'm not going to waste my time contributing if I have to take three times longer to do something because I can't edit a protected template. I can't block a vandal so its not worth my time looking for them. I can't read deleted content so there's little point in participating in things like CCU or Arbcom. I no longer have sympathy for long wait times and overworked admins. If they wanted the help it was there and offered. So now I'm just done. You can do whatever you want. Keep the account locked. Its fine with me. Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that your "occasional edits as an IP" are to extremely contentious ArbCom pages, where emotions are running high, and where you advocate desysopping people who happen to have blocked you in the past. That's not right, and it's against policy for very good reasons. If your IP edits were fixing misspellings in articles or reverting vandalism or adding sources, I doubt anyone would mind or care. Do you really not see the difference? 28bytes (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't advocate they be desysopped because they block me, I advocate it because they block unnecesarily aggressively and for exceeding lengths of time. They wield the admin tools like a mallet. I think they used to be one of the best admins but over the years they have grown cold in their duties and have become harsh. Since we are on the subject of Arbcom, I don't see anyone fussing at the other 8 IP's that have edited the various Arbcom cases. Just the 2 I used. One for my home and one at work which is used by a lot of other folks. So I am inclined to believe that it is not the sum or location of the edits, but indeed me. I think its also important to clarify that I was not the only one advocating they be desysopped. In fact one of the Arbitrators said that, a couple of other users said that and its what will likely come out of the Arbcom ruling. Kumioko (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well they denied my request for a global lock to my account. I think they are concerned I may change my mind. I got blocked for 6 hours but I'll try again tomorrow. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This behavior is very disturbing and disappointing. Your now just trying to get attention right? Posting about others when that gets no responses you ask for a global block. You really need to move on with your life outside Wikipedia or do the clean start processes. Just stop bitching about others and try to focus on yourself. Last post here ever! Moxy (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your right Moxy. There was a day I would have never done this but I am way beyond ever being able to recover this account and I tried for a long time to plead my case and no one cared. All I wanted to do was collaborate and work with others to build this place up but too many editors where more interested in protecting their interests and violating policy but yet i am the one that got blocked and run into the ground. The worst part about it is that too few cared. At this point I don't care about a clean start so that this broken toxic culture can just run me down again. On the note of getting attention. Absolutely not and I don't know why people are saying that. I asked for a global block and if that would have been done as I asked I would be able to respond, edit or likely even login. I don't understand how that would be getting attention. I certainly have my problems here too but there was a time when I really truly believed in this place, but the culture screwed that up. This is the kind of thing that happens when someone devotes a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia and then is told they can't be trusted. The person gets frustrated and pissed and they stop editing, turn into a vandal or lock their account. AS far as posting about others, I responded to a comment. There are a few that I think shouldn't be admins and I mentioned why in other forums. I'm not going to rehash that now because people don't care if they are bullies or bad admins. They talked the community into promoting them and its a billet for life. But I can't even edit a protected template, block a vandal or the various other things that the tools provide. I wanted to use my experience to help but was told no but that I could do all the work and ask someone else to implement the change. No thanks, if you don't want me to be able to implement the change, then you do the work. Too many experienced users are being pushed out rather than allowing them to edit and use their experience and its severely affecting things here. Someday someone will figure that out rather than just continue to stick their heads in the sand and claim there is no problem. I just want my account blocked. No drama, no muss no fuss. I'm not wanted here so its time to as you said above move on with my life outside wiki.Kumioko (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Your now just trying to get attention right?"... "You really need to move on with your life outside Wikipedia" - blaming the victim, how amusing. if you won't take negative feedback from exiting editors, who will you listen to? this will be an amusing experiment: how long will it be until asking to be blocked is disruptive justifying a permanent block? 6 hours, 1 day, 1 month? they don't like being "told" to use their tools, they prefer the Nixonian Madman theory. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like you hit the nail on the head there. A year ago I got blocked and fought tooth and nail to prove my innocence against what I still consider to be a lousy and ill performed block and no one wanted to hear it and blocked me completely until I finally persuaded someone to let me come back. Now, I want my accounts to be blocked without drama since I have been blocked here indefinately for socking and block evasion, they refuse, tell me I'm just being dramatic and that I should just walk away. How can asking for a global lock on my Wikia account be any less dramatic. All these replies would have been impossible if they would just lock my account. They don't want me to contribute and to use my experience but they won't block me either. All I can do is shake my head. Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians I begged and pleaded but I can't get the stewards to give me a Global site ban! I just got a 3 day block for disruption for not letting it go though. I really get the impression they don't think I'm serious about my intent! Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom resign?

Wow. I haven't really been a fan of Arbcom but demanding Arbcom resign is extreme even by my standards. Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And why does User:Int21h have a huge template on their user page saying the are blocked for socking if they are still allowed to edit. If the investigation was wrong that thing should be gone. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This just goes to show that the Checkuser tool can be and is frequently wrong and misread. This time they figured it out but how many times do they get it wrong and its just left? A lot I am certain. Its hard to read the data when there is a lot going on, its easy to misread if the source is an open proxy or public place with lots of users or if the user uses their laptop nomadically and changes IP's frequently...or a variety of other scenarios. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ray of sunshine to brighten this page

	Poof! to the Gray Skies
	You did a good thing. Audie Murphy made it to GA. My first GA, ever. Couldn't have done it without your help. Your advice was invaluable, so I'm sending this ray of sunshine to chase the gray skies you've having. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great congrats. If you want to try and take it farther to FA, try sending it through the A-class process through WikiProject Military history. That will get it within reach of being FA. Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have know

I should have known it would take more than 6 blocks and a countless number of bad calls, unnecessarily draconian blocks and bans to desysop an admin!. If this were just an editor they would have been banned from the project. But at least this does prove that I was right about out at least one thing in this place. There is an us and them mentality between admins and editors and the admins are always given the break. Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This makes me laugh

There was a time when seeing these block messages on my account really would have pissed me off (about this time last year actually) but now I login to see the message that I am blocked for Block evasion and socking (both for editing from my Home/work IP) and it just makes me laugh. I shake my head too, but I mostly just laugh. Then I see today another longterm editor Cla68 was indeffed. Pretty soon the only ones editing will be the bots! Kumioko (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how long it will be before my talk page access is revoked too. I imagine its coming eventually. Can't do anything else anyway, may as well go ahead and get that done. Still working on the Global lock. Sent an Email to the Wikimedia foundation requesting they do it, doubt they will though. Guess the only recourse I have is to "earn" the lock since they won't give it when "asked". Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

Wow, never really had a strong desire to edit the Wikipediocracy site before until yesterday. I didn't realize how much I was universally hated. Here, there and everywhere. Over here I am a vandal, sock-puppeteer and block evader. Over there I am whiney incompetent user crying about how I will never be an admin and shouldn't because I am too inept to have the tools. Wow. You try and make things better and try and participate and see what happens. I can't wait until I am blocked from this place for good. Nothing good will come out of editing any further. To think I once believed so strongly in this project. All the time, years, wasted on these foolish pursuits. I realize that no one reads my talk page anymore but maybe some will see what the future holds for them after donating countless hours to the project. Nothing, absolutely nothing. Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For further amusement I shall post a copy of a message I sent to a couple of fine upstanding editors on Wikipediocracy.

“ Greetings to the peanut gallery, imagine my surprise when I did a search to see if my name ever came up and I find comments by you 2 calling me a whiny little child and such. At first I was a little annoyed until I looked at the context. A group of haters hating. Then I went and looked at your Wikipedia user pages and what do I find. User:EricBarbour that looks like the rantings of a lunatic. The talk page is filled with junk and seeing that you were banned indefinately for outing. So, after learning this it compels me to think that I must be doing something right if I have somehow caught the interest of 2 fine upstanding individuals such as yourselves. You can call me whiny, a child or whatever but like it or not there are still folks that want me to edit, I do not see one person anywhere on your page that thinks you should stay. ”

Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you're blocked. Work your way back if you feel you still have a commitment to this site and its... interesting social milieu. As for Wikipediocracy, your posts so far over there have been nothing but constructive.→StaniStani  21:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop

I think it extremely ironic and silly that Fram accuses Carrite of being aggressive at opposing editors when that is his main modus operundi. I am confident that eventually the community will see through Fram's bullshit and cleverly worded rhetoric and see him for the bully he is. Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should provide some diffs for this, as just calling someone a bully is not really on. (Which is not to say that you're wrong, just that you should provide diffs.) I don't mind copying the diffs to an appropriate place in the case, if such a place exists. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All one needs to do is to read his interactions with other users. You can see many on his talk page or archives, in my archives, in the Archives of Rich Farmbrough, the ANI archives and a number of others. Particularly those he doesn't like. I will provide some diffs but its likely that no one will be interested so I probably won't spend too much time on it.

On second thought no offense I don't think anyone really wants to hear what I have to say so its just a waste of time for me to find links. There everywhere though. The users attitude is toxic. Just look at the ANI he is spearheading against RAN in addition to the examples I gave above. People say I am a jerk but the reason I am a jerk to some users like Fram is because they are jerks to me or others first and after asking them nicely and attempting to work with them, I start being a jerk back because being nice doesn't work with them. He is one of the worst admins in this place and one of the primary reasons that I continue to think that if he and others like him can be admins then the tools really aren't that big of a deal. Otherwise they would have been taken away from them by now. Plus I am indefinately blocked from editing so there is no reason for me to go rummaging through histories and archives when there is no value. Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I know my attitude is bad these days I just hope some remember when I actually had faith in the project. If I were too find these diffs and you were to post them somewhere what then? There would be a discussion, they would discount anything I provide as just ranting and trying to be "dramatic" (which is a popular term in Wikipedia referring to anything they don't agree with) and then discussion would be closed with no action. I wouldn't mind doing the work if I had faith the community would actually do anything, which I don't. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your page is watched, even if only by a few editors who don't edit every day, which is why it took me a while to see this. If you can supply diffs, they will be added. Believe me, there are more than a few "jerks" around here whose attitude and contributions would turn Buddha or the Virgin Mary into axe murderers, so I really can't fault anyone for responding in such a way. Also, if you wish, my e-mail is enabled, so if you would prefer that method, that might work better. I could then present that information to ArbCom, I think, saying that the information was forwarded to me and that I reviewed it personally and came to the conclusion that presenting it to ArbCom made sense, provided that would be true, and I think it probably would be. I suppose ArbCom could sanction me for some form of meatpuppetry in that case, but I'd be at least willing to contact them and see if evidence presented in such a way would be acceptable to them if it were presented to me. And good luck over at Simple English. If it would be helpful to you, I've started lists with a lot of the religion projects of lists of articles contained in print and academic encyclopedias, and it might be possible that some of them might be useful to help stimulate content development and improvement over there. Anyway, feel free to respond however you might like, if at all. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about it. I'm still not convinced it would do much good though. It may take some time though to compile a useful list. We were both very active users as were many of the ones he had a problem with so there is a massive amount of information to mine through. Its also not worth falling on your sword for me just because I can see through his crap. The community will figure it out just as they did with Racepacket and several others. With or without my help. As for simple I'm not editing there much either. I was pushing the stewards pretty hard for a global lock on my accounts and I still want that but not enough to turn into a cross wiki vandal. So if they lighten up and block me as I asked that will be the end of it. Otherwise I guess I'll check in from time to time. I also just checked and by my surprise there are about 120 people that watch this page. Down from over 400 at one time but still quite a few given the state of things. Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A Request for Comment has been called at Talk:Watchmen. As a registered editor who has edited that page over the past year, you may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome home

Welcome home, Kumioko. Glad to see you back. Hope you enjoyed your time off. I hope your stay will be an enjoyable one. It's really nice to have you back. Kind regards. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I really didn't intend to create another account but the problem was since my Home and work IP addresses change it gave them an accuse to block me for socking to shut me up. I had no choice but to create a new one. Apparently the encyclopedia anyone can edit isn't editable by IP's. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

A cheeseburger to fuel your future editing on Wikipedia. It is great to see you back on, and you have contributed much to this community in the past; I only hope that you continue to contribute such quality work in the future! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

May I ask a favor, please?

You know I have a great deal of respect for you, Kumioko, and I think you are a great benefit to the project. I am very happy you have returned, so please don't take this the wrong way. Sometimes you get wrapped up in something and lose sight of of the goal. It would be a great benefit to me if you try to slow down a little and focus more on the goal if you feel you are getting wrapped up in something. This place can be very trying at times. Very trying. And it's in our best interest to not let others get us wound up because they will use that to their advantage. I hope you don't mind me asking this favor of you. Thanks very much and welcome home. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope no worries. Thanks for dropping by. For what its worth its only a matter of time before someone blocks me for something anyway. I'm just trying to participate until that happens, err, again. Unfortunately there is a big divide between some admins and editors in this place. Most of the 650+ admins are fine and happy to be around. Its the 25 or so that think its their personal responsibility to play wiki cop and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it I have a problem with. Many of which are basically bullies that have somehow rooted themselves in this place. But yet I am the Ahole because I call them out. Its ironic and funny. Happy editing. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kumioko. I appreciate you letting me talk to you so openly. I certainly hope things will get better here on the project and I thank you for all your efforts and especially for helping to make the project a more welcoming place. Kind regards. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have to admit I don't consider myself very welcoming anymore considering I am focusing most of my edits these days on fixing some of the bad policies and policy violators. Most of which won't listen the nice way and won't change, so I am using the not so nice way. I'm not going to make nearly as much time for this place as I used too. My hearts just not in it and I see the site is dying an agonizing and painful death. If I can releive some of the pain by cutting out some of the tumors, then that's what I will try and do. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. J/K :D —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL, really dude! I just got tired of people telling me I was socking because the IP's for my home and my work are dynamic and change frequently to reduce the chances of being hacked. So yes, up until a few days ago and the creation of this account that might have been arguable. That is in fact why I created this account though. So that those who want me blocked to shut me up would have one less thing to complain about. I hope that helps to clear things up though. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, being the great genius I am, it occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, now, you might be a sockpuppet of User:Kumioko? Uz geniusez can see lotz of thingz you mere mortalz cant', you no. If not, great to see you. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Looks like you caught me! :-)

KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey, thanks for the constructive debate on Jimbo's talk page tonight. On a completely different note, have you thought about doing something with WP:MILHIST? Lots of topics to your taste, very active project with a lot of people to reach out to when you want to work on something, and they probably have enough tasks that they could use the advice of an experienced bot person. Having watched a number of people go at it over the years, trying to accomplish social change here tends to make people more burned-out and cranky, not less, but it's much harder to take the fun out of content work. If you can't kick the habit of being on here, you might as well have something to enjoy. :) Best, Choess (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I might do a little editing but I'm not really interested in working on a WikiProject actively. I tried that but found after a couple years of trying to get WPUS and some of the other projects up and running that there are too many people in projects that think that they or the project owns the articles and the community doesn't stand behind the article ownership policy. Its just a hollow policy we use when we can get enough of our friends rallied to our cause. Its not actively or consistently supported. I'll probably do some edits but right now I am just trying to focus on fixing some of the problems so its fun to edit again. There are too many assholes in positions of power these days that take the fun out of editing by giving wild interpretations about policies because there either so vague they can be interpreted a variety of ways or no one wants to fight it. At some point I expect to be blocked or taken to Arbcom myself but until then I hope to make this place better by standing up to some of the bullies. If we don't turn this toxic culture and environment around there won't be a Wikipedia for long. Kumioko (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Templates for Medal of Honor

Most likely, I can help you create a typical markup-based template to display the data items, but with tricks to make it run very quickly. I am not sure where the articles are, as "Category:Medal_of_Honor_recipients" does not exist. What are some of the article names? Currently, for the ~2,900 towns in Austria, each population count is extracted from a set of population-metadata templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks. The recipients can be found at Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor. The main article Medal of Honor has some of the numbers and some of them are contained in the lists which can be found at Template:Medal of Honor recipients. I hope this helps. Again, I would be happy to do the work if you could should be an example template. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

KumiokoCleanStart, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi KumiokoCleanStart! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Maybe I'll stop by. I'm pretty familiar with it already. Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Hi KumiokoCleanStart. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Seasons Bleedings, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. The db-band template is for bands, not albums. Michael Greiner 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it didn't seem to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (music) but thanks for letting me know. Kumioko (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I potentially wouldn't disagree about that, but the A7 speedy deletion criteria doesn't extend to albums, only bands themselves. Additionally since the band that created the album has an article, the A10 criteria doesn't fit either. I'm not sure that the article would survive a trip to AFD but it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. --Michael Greiner 20:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alexander Lett Spence

Hello KumiokoCleanStart. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alexander Lett Spence, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: DFC recipient. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, usually DFC recipients aren't inherently notable. Its usually just Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross (or the highest award for that country). Kumioko (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gadeguduru

Hello KumiokoCleanStart. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gadeguduru, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Its a village. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 11:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it was badly written, appears to be a copy paste from somewhere else (although I can't figure out where) and the only reference was a wiki. Kumioko (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it needs a lot of work, but none of those problems would justify speedy deletion. If of course you found something it was copied from and which had an overly restrictive license..... ϢereSpielChequers 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Eleventh Hour

wow, that was quick I hadn't even finished creating it, it seems your not aloud to take a break from things like this (which is unfair), but there are plenty of articles like this why delete only mine.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be too quick. Feel free to remove the tag if your still working on it. It would probably be better though if you worked on the article a little in userspace if your going to build it a little at a time. Others may still mark it for deletion too. Unfortunately there's no way for us to know your still working on it. Kumioko (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your understanding

Medicina legal

Why did you nominate Medicina legal for speedy deletion? It was not a test page and being non-english is not a valid CSD. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 02:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Non english pages are valid, but not in the english WP space. It would be ok to put it in userspace or in the language its written in. Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

echo and flow

here's the video of jorm talking at wikimania 2012 [1]. long time coming. slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tibor Spitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University Press (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:United States/Collaborations

Portal:United States/Collaborations, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:United States/Collaborations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:United States/Collaborations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

deletion of milagrow

hey pinkampersand told me that i could continue with it..its legit man..i have talked to him he's allowed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.datta (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, feel free to remove the tag then, but I'm not the only one reviewing these things so it might just get marked again by someone else. It would probably be better to create it in User space as UserAyush.datta/Milagrow or something until you get it built up a bit to be released to prime time. Its still written a lot like an advertisement. FeelKumioko (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

how do i remove it? i have contested the deletion, dont be s quick to judge, i have quoted reliable sources, FT LOndon included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.datta (talk • contribs) 13:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:Beyond My Ken. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Comments like this are unacceptable. Not only was that a rude personal attack, it ignores that fact that users have the discretion to remove messages from their talk page as they see fit (with the exception of some official actions such as block notices). -- LWG ^talk 01:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

BMK is a menace to the project, a bully and an immature child. He and editors like him are a reason we are losing editors and that the editing environment here is such as it is, toxic. I would also note that, your comment above is a little bit disingenuous since Ken was equally negative in his comments. Also, for what its worth I used to stay cool and in the end it doesn't matter. I have interacted with Ken for years and he is an impetuous immature child who throws temper tantrums and resorts to name calling and the like. He doesn't feel any differently about me of course but that is how it is. Kumioko (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the unfortunate reality, that you two are unable to have a civil discussion with each other due to past grudges, then you should not be interacting with him at all. There was no need for you to pile an inflammatory attack on top of the polite correction I posted on his page. I would recommend that you un-watch his page and forget he exists. -- LWG ^talk 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You are forgetting the comments he is posting. I don't disagree that my comments were harsh and impolite. That is how Ken is to most editors all the time. The comments I left him are his modus operundi. I simply treat him as he treats others. I appreciate that you are trying to be civil in this but I recommend correcting Ken as well if you want to have any credibility with me. I used to be just like you believe it or not. But when you get shit on enough trying to do the right thing and people use policy against you or use their admin tools against you and no one stops them, you'll get a bit jaded as well. Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

A discussion regarding some of your recent edits is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#User:KumiokoCleanStart. Fram (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What a joke. Clearly an attack on me from one of Wikipedia's biggest bullies. Of course I'll probably be the one that get's blocked because the admins here would rather block the last one to comment and not the root of the problem so I just want to leave this comment here first. Kumioko (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hi. I have declined your speedy deletion request at Engenho dos Erasmos, because neither of the reasons you gave were valid. Firstly, it might be short, but it does clearly state what it is about, so CSD:A1 is not applicable. Secondly, there is no indication it is a test page, so CSD:G2 is also inapplicable. I note you have been tagging a lot of pages with CSD:G2 recently, despite their clearly not being test pages. Please stop doing that - G2 has a specific meaning and is not just a "catch all" for anything you think should be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem thanks for letting me know. Kumioko (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Seely Place Elementary School

Hello KumiokoCleanStart. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Seely Place Elementary School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 clearly excludes schools. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 09:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There is a guideline regarding notability that says most elementary schools and middle schools aren't inherently notable but I can't seem to find it at the moment. No problem though. Kumioko (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You meant Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Please see my comment and suggestion at Talk:Seely Place Elementary School. (I think i myself cannot make a move like that right now, as it could be viewed as starting a new article.) --doncram 12:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doncram and good points/idea. Maybe I'll look into doing that a little later. Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A Nice Picture

Hey, I found a featured picture not included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Featured Picture list. Could you add it please? Thanks!

The Monroe Street Bridge in Spokane, WA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.202.98 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, good find. Kumioko (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Dan-Yi Chen

I declined the speedy deletion of this article because (1) the article was at least half in English, and (2) I did not know where it had been transwikied to. If you still believe the article deserves to be speedily deleted, please feel free to renominate it for speedy deletion, but please provide further explanation of the nomination on the page's talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Kumioko (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy tags

You tagged Majakani for G2 deletion, but the page was not a test page, but a page in another language. You have been asked already to be more careful in applying G2.

You also tagged Porki for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", which is lot worse than the above mistagging. The page was in English and had a clearly identifiable subject. It is badly written, but that is completely different from "patent nonsense". It is rather discouraging for a new user to get his or her first attempt at an article labeled thus. Fram (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fram, first I am going to assume good faith in that you stumbled onto these in the course of your admin duties and not as part of your ongoing harassment of me. Since you rarely use your admin tools other than in the course of harassing users you don't like (which seems more likely the case here) my AGF is likely unwarranted. As I said at ANI. I am glad you took an interest in the Porki article and cleaned it up. Reallly I honestly am. When I tagged it, my impression was that it was just some rambling nonesense so I tagged it as such. Again, validating my previous arguments that the CSD process is best as a 2 party system. I couldn't make heads nor tails of it. Most articles that get reviewed are pretty good. They are reasonably well written, have basic structure, some references and categories and give the appearance of coherant though. The Porki article did not. In regards to the other article. This is the English Wikipedia, not Spanish, German nor Chinese. We do not function like wiktionary with every language linked to a central article (though in many ways it would be better frankly). Articles written in another language have no place in the English Wikipedia any more than an English one should be in the German Wikipedia. Otherwise it just confuses our readers. I don't expect you to agree, but that's my reasoning. Whether I used the right or wrong CSD tag is irrelevant. The article still doesn't belong here. Since its obvious you are going to hound me incessantly and since you are an admin and I merely an editor I am goign to give you what you clearly want. I am going to stop reviewing new articles. I'll let someone else deal with the 8-9000 article backlog. I have better things to do than to waste my time arguing with you about how I volunteer my time to help the project. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The CSD tags are to be used in very particular ways. It's better not to use them at all than to consistently misuse them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Sarek, I am well aware of how those tags work. I have been around for quite awhile in contrast to the fairly new first edit date of this user name. Did you even bother to look at what the article looked like before it was cleaned up? I doubt it so here is a link to what it looked like when I tagged it. I still contend that it was incoherant crap. I assumed good faith, sort of, with Fram. But the truth is, I really know better based on Fram's history. The only reason he cleaned up the article and made an issue is because he is looking for a reason to continue harassing me. And you are feeding that. He doesn't use his admin tools to delete stuff unless it pertains to a case he is actively involved in. He does not actively monitor the admin venues unless he is trying to run down an editor he doesn't like and you are feeding into that. Stop. I have been trying to tell people he is doing it. That he is a bully. But I am the asshole. Ok fine. I am an asshole. You think I am doing a bad job at reviewing articles? Fine, I stopped. Good faith effort to cut down the backlog over. I won't do it anymore. But that is why there are 8-9000 articles pending review. Because most editors don't want to deal with this drama. Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Something that is puzzling me a little about all of this is why you didn't respond to Fram's comment above in the same way you responded to other comments here and here. Even assuming that your claims are true and Fram is deliberately harassing you out of some grudge (a possibility that I have not ruled out), he would be utterly incapable of hurting you if you treated him like you treated other editors in the comments I linked to. Please don't interpret this as an accusation, as it is not one. I'm just puzzled at why you aren't taking advantage of what appears to me to be an obvious solution to your problems. -- LWG ^talk 15:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because those comments were sincere and Fram's were not. Its really as simple as that. At this point it should be obvious to everyone that Fram and me have problems with each other. So why would he leave a comment here less than one day after opening an ANI? Because he is harassing me. Frankly I thought my response was pretty good considering. Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But see, even if they weren't sincere, if you responded to them as if they were he'd be helpless to harm you. The entire goal of any wiki-harassment is generally to goad the victim into doing something they can later link to as incivility. A polite "oh, I'm sorry about that, I'll fix it" or "oh, I'm sorry about that, I thought policy X stated Y on this subject", like you give to a sincere concern, leaves your harasser with absolutely no reward for his efforts. -- LWG ^talk 16:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are correct and that is likely how I would deal with most reasonable editors. That's not the case here. By doing that, I would be acknowledging that I agree there is a problem. Which I do not. Then Fram would track that, probably offline and continue to gather evidence and then, a few months from now he will present them to ANI or Arbcom and say somehthing like "See, they agreed way back here in April that there was a problem and failed to fix it". Fram knows the policy and the rules and how to use them to his advantage. He has the admin tools so he can see deleted content and things that the normal editor can't and he uses that to his advantage. I realize you are just coming into this and your comments and sincere conern is appreciated, but there is a lot more too this than just the last couple days. Aside from that I know what the policies are, he knows I do and so do most others. Do I make subjective errors? Sure, everyone does. But my tagging Porki as CSD as being gibberish isn't the issue here. The issue here is Fram. I am the gorilla in the room. I know that. But Fram is the guy holding the bananas to the bars and then wonders why the gorilla throws pooh at him! Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To extend your analogy, if you stop being a gorilla, Fram will become an idiot who is waving bananas in the air for no apparent reason. As things stand, you're losing the battle, because when the average person like me sees you two we see two people who are wasting our time with their inability to cooperate with each other. Most of us would immediately side with a party in a dispute who was going to great lengths to maintain civility, but when neither party is even trying it makes us not want to side with either. If you maintain civility, then if in a few months Fram does roll out some trumped-up charges, you can be sure people like me will back up your side of the story. On the other hand, if this grudge match continues, odds are that we will ban whichever user is louder just to buy ourselves a little peace. -- LWG ^talk 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I have tried that, many many times over the years. The discussions always (except extremely rare occassions) goes to the side of the admin. The editor is always the loser. Anyways, this problem is over for now. Fram has left his comments here and at ANI as have I. As is typical a lot of the comments seem to be encouraging him to continue so I am sure before long you will see more from him about me. He is likely sitting at home, watching the smurfs and chuckling himself silly while thinking what chumps, they fell for it again. It should be noted though that I am not the one opening up all of these discsussions of complaint. A little research would see that Fram is the one doing that. I just refuse to sit by while he does it agin, as he has done to so many others in the past. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Working on Medal of Honor recipients

Since I seem to be the target of the month I want to let everyone know that I am no longer reviewing new articles. I am going to turn my focus on building up the Medal of Honor recipient articles until someone complains about that. I will be starting on add some WikiProject tags and assessing the ones that haven't been assessed yet. Sometimes the assessment of Stubs and Starts can be subjective. I think most are starts and I intend to tag them that way. If you disagree feel free to change them to stubs. No need to ask, comment or advise. I completely understand and its ok. Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A Nice Picture...

Hey Kumioko, I found spotted some Washington related featured content. Its a beautiful picture and I think its a shame that it isnt included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Featured Pictures list. Could you add it? Thanks!

File:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.202.98 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it as FM but I guess the bot that updates the featured content lists has been run in a while. Kumioko (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Peregory.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Peregory.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My ANI for CSD submissions, New Pages awaiting review at 10, 131

Looks like the ANI Fram submitted against me for my work on patrolling new pages had some consequences. I've never seen it over 10, 000 unreviewed new pages before until recently. Seems the patrollers were sent a pretty clear message! Kumioko (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Its up to 11, 225 now. Up from a little over 8500 when I was helping review. Looks like Fram had a greater negative impact on the recent page patrolling than I ever did. Looks like a pretty clear message has been sent to the new page patrollers. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

American film portal

I created Portal:Film in the United States WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that great job. I see you already added it to Template:WikiProject United States as well. Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, I was absolutely not suggesting that you're too stupid to understand a policy, I just objected to how you suggested the proposal (and thought it wasn't the best avenue to go about getting things changed).

There's nothing I can do if that's how you interpreted my comments, but I just making sure I was clear. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't just you. Its also not my fault if people don't read the purpose and assume its something its not. But I just have a chip on my shoulder because I am an untrustworthy editor so I wouldn't take it too personally. Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

EVula, I'm one of the folks that said that it reflects not understanding how the policy works. This is NOT a bad reflection on you. The system (for better or for worse) is immensely complex and fuzzy. Even when I was at 20,000 edits (and I'm no dummy) I still did not understand how the system worked. So my comment just makes you a normal, intelligent, conscientious Wikipedian. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, if I just got here I would agree. But given that I have been here since about 2007 and have a little of 405, 000 edits, I have a pretty good understanding of a lot of the policies, certainly the five pillars. Please don't let the fact I am not an admin give the impression I am clueless. Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

:-). OK, thanks....then what I was referring to is that:

• It is (just) a policy, not on a higher tier than any other policy. So it would not automatically "win" in such conflicts; they would need to get resolved in a discussion. I.E. it would just be an "input" in the fuzzy neural-net-like systems that resolve these things.
• The wording of the policy has a requirement-to-be-met built in; someone would need to establish that that requiremnt is being met, which IMHO would be wp:snow for such obvious cases
• 99% of it's usage is when it is not even invoked. For example, keeping wiki-lawyering at bay, knowing that there is a silver bullet available if wiki-lawyers get too crazy. And I've never even seen it invoked, and I'm guessing that really "out there" invokings do not prevail.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

But 99% of the reason that many of these policies get wikilawyered is because they are unclear and ambiguous. Clarifying our policies will prevent Wikilawyering, confusion and abuse. Not just with this one but with all of them. A huge reason why we have so many problems on here is because we, the community leave things so open to interpretation that it leaves huge wiggle room for anything to go. Arbcom does it when they make their decisions. Admin do it when they make their decisions, often incorrectly. 1 Year blocks for trivial problems. Banning after one edit. Allowing some people to get away with murder while others are thrown out for less. Anyway, I'm over it. Every one knows this site has problems but every single suggestion for improvement is met with snide comments and defeatist mentality. We are clearly incapable of making the changes necessary to fix our culture so there's no point in continuing to argue about it. Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% right. But let me offer an idea/glimmer of hope. One of the things that you may have noticed is that 5 wiki-saavy people acting in unison can do pretty much anything in Wikipedia such as getting the innocent executed or the guilty protected. Now if there was a group of 5 experienced people with wisdom to understand & figure out what would help and then make that happen........ North8000 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I used to believe strongly in the project, I devoted a lot of time and effort to it and had hope that things would change. These days not so much. Kumioko (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you ever want's to try my experiment and be one of the "5", let me know. I have been trying to sort some thoughts at wp:strategic issues with core policies North8000 (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but to be honest every day I find it a little harder to keep editing. With the recent 1 year ban of Rich F, the stupid blocks of Russavia and Alan Leifting and the recent retirement of AutomaticStrikeout I'm seeing that there is less and less reason for me to keep logging back in. Every day I do a little less and its a little easier to stop. One of these days I'll logoff and that will be it. This place doesn't need or want editors like me anymore. Too many policy enforcers and blockhappy admins wanting to ban everyone. Kumioko (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, either way, may the wind be at your back. North8000 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, better that than the daggers.:-) Good luck to you tooKumioko (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tifon 2a

Looks like you had been playing with the article. I'll leave you to clean up the mess as you know what to keep/delete. Bgwhite (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think it can be deleted. I was trying to do a few things to clean it up but the editor who started it just reverted them so I left it alone. I can't do anything about it so I just dropped it and left. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oddity?

Hi Kumioko. Maybe it's just me, but i notice that Archive 13 of your talk page is included in the category Burnt-out Wikipedians, which i suspect it shouldn't be. I'm not doing anything about it, 'cause that's your prerogative, but does it need removing? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Its definately true but I commented it out all the same. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If you (as opposed to your talk page archive) are burned out, and i can see from some of your contributions you might well be, why not put it on your user page instead of the talk page, then it won't get archived, and will show you as a member of the category, instead of your talk page. In the same vein of teaching grandmother the sucking of eggs, why not stay away from places like ANI and the whole of project space for a while; every time i see you there you seem to be frustrated ~ it can't be fun, but the rest of the place still is... :) Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I even participate in those areas is because I have been finding that the rest of the place is getting less and less fun because of the situations I am participating at ANI for. I wish I could ignore them unfortunately I did that for years and years and now I feel as though if I had participated back then some of the problems and situations we are in now could have been avoided because I saw them coming back then and didn't do anything then. Now we have abusive editors and admins all over and few editors wanting to do anything about it. Kumioko (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Per this, I understand you were upset, and I won't block you or leave you a templated message. I will warn you that if you do something like this again you are likely to be blocked.--John (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, fair enough. It bothers me more that I knew no one would say anything to him for his conduct and I had to do it myself than if I got blocked honestly. But that's how this place is. We let one editor do what they want and focus in on certain ones. Kumioko (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read Nonviolent Communication in its entirety. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I always found Sun Tsu and The Art of War much more interesting! Perhaps if you want me to behave it would be useful to investigate Beyond My Ken's entirely unhelpful and provocative contributions that caused me to make the statement I did. Perhaps, if I felt as though the admins here would actually do something (which I do not and that is confirmed by the lack of messages on his talk page) I wouldn't have compelled to leave the message I did. Just a thought! 19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Kumioko (talk)

I am curious, did you learn to be a silly person by attending Silly School or were you born silly? If you tried to redirect your energy in more creative ways you might accomplish a great deal. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you just trying to provoke me or do you have a point? I'm trying to assume good faith but your comments seem a lot like trolling. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just like your comments on BMK's page, wouldn't you say? Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No because I was responding to his comments. The difference is that I made my comments to him after he acted like a childish ass. You left comments because you felt compelled too. As far as I know we have never interacted so I don't have anything negative to say about you. Ken on the other hand...well we have had some interactions and I am quite certain that he/she does not like me anymore than I like them. A couple of years ago I would have went to great effort to make amends but since no one wants to tell him to stop acting like a child and making snide comments in discussions he isn't a part of, I did. If the admins start enforcing policy when problems occur instead of when it suits them Wikipedia would be a better place. Now please, go back to editing and don't get involved in squables between me and Ken. Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, this is not a response to any comments. It is a new thread. Look, try to ask yourself, what am I trying to gain? Because, by all accounts, you were trying to get blocked. After all, that's why you started the ANI thread asking for a selfie while pointing to that comment. Are you starting to see the pattern of seeking negative attention? The problem here isn't admins failing to enforce policy, it's editors who can't control themselves. If you know the Art of War, then why are you always starting wars? Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you clearly didn't bother to look I'll explain it in detail. My response to Ken was in references to or interactions in the past in addition to this edit as well as this where he removed my comment stating incorrectly I removed a users comment which I clearly did not. Then this edit where he reverted my reversion of his reversion. Then a childish deletion of comments to his talk page because he was too much of a chicken shit to respond. How is that for an explaination. So basically he was being childish and I called him on it which made you mad. So, please look into the history of the discussion before responding to a discussion you clearly don't understand. I don't have the time or desire anymore to discuss this with you. Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you get the desired outcome? Has BMK changed his behavior, and are you now working on the encyclopedia? If no, then what went wrong? Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe BMK will ever change his bahavior, I have been working on the pedia and you keep disctracting me from doign anything else but this discussion. Now please go away. Shoo! Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I will leave now, but you made my point for me. You posted on BMK's talk page in bad faith, having no confidence in resolving the dispute, and asked to be blocked for your behavior. Nobody forced you to post to his talk page, just like nobody is forcing you to respond to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike BMK I try and respond to discussions, questions and comments let on my talk page. The posters may not always like what I have to say but I try too and under the circumstances and your Pointy behavior I think I have been rather patient. Especially knowing that you were just being pointy the whole time. Frankly I think you need to find a better mentor than BMK, I can name several really good ones if you are interested. Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You're being silly again. BMK isn't my mentor, and I've had plenty of disputes with him over the years (check the noticeboard archives). However, I have learned to get along with him. Can you say the same? Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I used too and I would like to think its possible but since its clear he has absolutely no interest in attempting to get along with me nor are the admins going to do anything about his behavior I have no problems with saying at this point "Nope, not really!". Just another bonehead the site can do without IMO. Kumioko (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am afraid I have to agree with Kumioko here. BMK's behaviour has been abysmal and admins just don't bother getting involved at his blatant uncooperative childish behaviour. He repeatedly ignores warnings and cries foul whenever someone criticise him and any attempt at mediation, especially if you don't share his viewpoint, is met with hostility. Hat off to Kumioko for being brave enough to stand up to him. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody, and I mean nobody is defending BMK's behavior. What is also indefensible is the nasty message Kumioko left on BMK's talk page. Sorry, but BMK didn't force Kumioko to write that message. We're all in control of our own behavior. Being nasty doesn't constitute "standing up for yourself". Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing to remember is I and a lot of others have attempting being nice to BMK repeatedly over the years. All BMK does is make nasty comments and doesn't have any interest in hearing the nice way or being nice in return. So yes, I made nasty rude comments to him becaue I knew that I would get nasty comments in return because that's how he is and no I do not feel a bit sorry about it. If a user treats others with respect I will treat them with respect but if that user treats me and others like trash and wants to act like trash then that's how I'll treat them. If the admins in the community wants to allow that user to act that way (which seems the case here) and block me instead for being mean then that's fine. I'll gladly take that block. At some point they need to realize that they need to deal with the problem and proactively deal with it rather than reacticely by blocking me. When they start doing the job they are supposed to do then I won't feel like I have too. Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald. If you see any outstanding issues that have not been resolved, bring them here and I'll attempt to raise them with the user. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad someone is trying but I am hesitant to think anything will come out of it. BMK has been here for years and many many many editors have confronted him but yet nothing is done. I'll keep watching and maybe draft a comment on the side but given that I have been such a strong critic I doubt that my comments would add value to the discussion. I think its better I stay out of it for now. Kumioko (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That RFC is from 2008. If you see anything that has not been resolved, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes now I see it. Now I understand why they use his old username. Five years hence and still things remain the same.Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It would really help if you could go through the RFC and find specific things that you are dealing with now that were addressed back then. That way I can bring them to his attention. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look and write something up while I'm blocked which will end in 3 or 4 days. A lot of it isn't an issue these days as far as I can tell but some of it is still an issue. He does other things now that he didn't do then that are problematic. No rush though, it can wait a few days. Kumioko (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, Oh I am not saying Kumioko's behaviour was acceptable, but regardless, BMK's attitude needs to change if he wishes to continue editing. I also believe that the attitude of some admins is "Oh if we leave him alone he will go away" or "someone else can deal with it" because there is a distinct lack of warnings to him or attempts to reign him in. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 19:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Notes to self: Things to do once block expires

1. Finnish creating pages for Project articles under review
2. Link those to the Project to do lists
3. Create pages for Portal:Film in the United States/Selected biography/1 (5 pages to start)
4. Portal:Film in the United States/Selected picture/1 (5 to start)
5. Portal:Film in the United States/Did you know (365 pages)
6. Portal:Film in the United States/News (365 pages)
7. Fix problems with Template:WikiProject United States (8 so far)
8. Finish verifying and updating MOH recipients recently created.

Will add more later.Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to self - This is an apparently acceptable way of treatign users these days

User:Beyond My Ken's note to another user here. Almost certainly there is a more approrpriate way to say this. Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship when block expires

This discussion begs for a comment. I hope its still open when my block expires....because I have a comment! Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Free advice being worth exactly what you paid for it, you are more than welcome to ignore me...nevertheless, when you are unblocked, please consider staying away from anyplace that begins Wikipedia... or Wikipedia talk. You've plenty to offer in the articles; stay there for a bit and show your value. I mean, you've even given yourself some notes up above on things to do; stick with them! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it but I have a lot of experience and insight both in the real world and in Wikipedia that is relevant to these discussions. I used to edit primarily for the project but I was shown that doesn't matter repeatedly. What seems to matter more these days is participating in these discussion because having ignored them for years is a large part of why the culture has become what it is. Because the people who should be commenting ignore them and the people who want power and want to keep it or have some vested interest are the ones setting the policy for the rest of us. I should not need to stay away from those areas because some users who don't like me or my opinions participate. If they argue against my ideas simply because its me then that is a problem and not the idea itself. Take care. I don't edit nearly as much as I used too though either way. Rather than doing 10,000 - 30,000 edits per month like I used to I barely do 3 or 4 hundred. 11:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Kumioko (talk)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

	Pierogi Award
	Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries. Maybe next time. Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Testing something

Test for the new Discussion logic. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Clean start policy

+1 (from prior experience) Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for standing up to bullies. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Color Wheel

That Color Wheel link in your useful tools registers as an attack page to Firefox. I was wondering if you were aware of that. Also, thanks for your input from before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for letting me know. I wonder how long its been like that. I removed it. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

AE

Per your comments about Arbcom being extended to include MOS, there is no possibility of that happening – Arb deals solely with conduct, not content, just as DRN deals solely with content. There have been many erroneous statements made about Arb participating in the heated MOS discussions a year or two ago, but the participation was solely to handle the conduct there, and not the content. Arb is not our Supreme Court to decide content, that is what DRN is for. Apteva (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that is correct but based on the comment that Gatoclass made I wanted to make that comment. Additionally, Arbcom has in the past made the decision to increase their own scope through various decisions a little at a time. Regardless of how the rules should work, the Arbcom has become the defacto governing body of Wikipedia and there is very little they do that could be argued effectively. If they made a statement that their powers extended to and or beyond the MOS, the only one that could revert that would be the WMF and its unlikely they would do so openly. Arbcom has become the supreme power of Wikipedia and there is nothing or at least very little that can be done about it without intervention from the WMF which as I said above is unlikely to say the least. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed a bit of in-fighting within ARB recently and (I think) more than one arbitrator quitting because they complained that they did not sign up to fight with the arb. WMF stays completely away from all conduct and content issues. All they do is provide us with a platform, what we do with the platform is totally up to us (other than legal issues). Apteva (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies for this. It's written clearly at the top of the section that only Admins are meant to post there, and I was just being WP:BOLD. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries but thanks for the explanation. Not directed at you but its just further evidence of the us and them admin vs. editor mentality I have been talking about for months that people keep insisting doesn't exist. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I had made another comment too. I moved it up into my section so now its extremely difficult to follow the discussion without jumping all over the page and pretty much ensures that no one is going to read the comments outside the Admin only section. But that's how the system is designed. Favor the admins, F the rest. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be on the same page when it comes to Wiki-issues, at least kinda.

Komioko, after reading your responses here (and in other places), I would be appreciated if you can update me with links to the same or other problems you see. I usually don't follow those pages but would appreciate any link to new developments. Thanks in front, TMCk (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, That's a pretty big can of worms to open up but here goes, I hope this helps:

1. A lot of cities and areas have meetups regularly. One example is DC but the same is true of others like New York as well.
2. There is the Village pumps, the Help desk and the Teahouse.
3. There's Jimbo's talk page, always a hive of activity and drama.
4. There are the IRC channel's
5. There are other sites like the ones mentioned above for all of the other wiki's including Wiktionary, WikiSpecies, WikiTravel, etc. They may call it something different but the result is the same.
6. Then you have the dreaded and hated site Wikipediocracy...the site who shall not be named. Its a huge drama fest and a mess and has a lot of good and bad in it. Much like Mos Eisley spaceport you'll never find a more wretched hive of Wikiscum and villiany. But it also has a lot of good info and insight if you can weed out all the hyperbole and crap.

I hope this helps a little. But let me know if you need anything else. Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive response, It really is :)
But actually I don't want to check those pages on a regular bases and thought you might pass me of a link when there is something important for common editors like me to know and comment on. You have my appreciation if you can do so but no worries if you don't. Thanks in any case, TMCk (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will work for a couple reasons. First some could argue I am Canvassing but more importantly I don't know what you consider important. I have all the drama boards on my watchlist and they all get important stuff to me but to you they might not be important. It really would be better if you watchlist them yourself and just discard what isn't important to you. Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. My interest lays in anything forced upon us that adds to loading times or new gadgets that come w/o an option out. Since I asked you to let me know about those issues, it wouldn't be canvassing but I realize that it would put a burden on you to remember me when discovering such and realize that it is too much to ask. Instead I'll try to keep an eye out myself as much as possible just as you suggested. Please accept my apology for trying to solve my laziness in this manner at your expense. Thanks for your straight forward replies, TMCk (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AFC redirects

Hi, I have been declining your A6 nominations for AFC redirects. Such redirects are supposed to exist. The case to delete these could apply if the article they point to was deleted, which was not in your case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really agree, what purpose do they serve? They don't link to any discussions or other pages besides the article being created and all the articles already have the AFC WikiProject Banner so why keep a useless redirect just for the sake of having it? Kumioko (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if they are useless. They do provide a permanent record of the articles being created by AFC, that will survive even if the AFC banner gets lost from the Talk page. This may be a bit lame: They're part of the history of Wikipedia. I don't see any urgency or importance to deleting them, either. I wonder how you are even noticing them, to be bothered by their existence. You must have to search for them? And, I'd rather have help moving any a items to b locations, at my talk page, if you have spare energy.... :) --doncram 11:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The AFC banner on the talk page also shows a permanant record of the arficle being created, so there isn't a need for an additional redirect. I would agree it should be kept if it was linked in a discussion like for some back and forth dialogue of improving the article. Honestly I see them all of the place when I start doing maintenance stuff under the Wikipedia domain and then I have to remove tens of thousands of Article for creation links. Aside from that cross namespace redirects are usually discouraged but here we seem to have built in this huge exception. Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The best place to talk about this would be WT:AFC where the procedures that are used in AFC are discussed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean this discussion? Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Spot on! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Huff?

Hi, I don't necessarily agree with your comment here. Wikis' open participation model is very susceptible to trolling, so it often makes sense to withdraw from a conversation once you have said your peace. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough and there is certainly some truth to that. Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Great attitude. Cheers! Basket Feudalist 11:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Deep-rooted hatred

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Tit for tat, flies and honey, and the golden rule, the same logic applies: Civility begets civility. I certainly did not intend to be hateful by saying that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it struck me as odd that you both seemed to have this dislike and I haven't interacted with you at all. Thanks for the clarification though. Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Kumioko. I've closed your RfA a little early per your comment here. Hopefully you'll enjoy your weekend a little more without having to check in on it. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It clearly wasn't going to pass and was only attracting trolls and vandalism at this point. Have a good weekend. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Medicine subpages

Could you explain why you've tagged pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes/21 for deletion? If you've explained elsewhere, or if you're doing it on someone else's request, please just point me to where it is. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Femto bot was operated by Rich Farmbrough. Rich has been banned from operating bots and his bots shut down. These pages haven't been updated since before May 2012 (some in 2011). Additionally multiple requests have been made to other bot operators to maintain the functionality and all have refused. One did make a Toolserver app that is fairly close. So there is no need to keep these pages, which all say recent (which is confusing) that haven't been updated in more than a year and won't be updated. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand schools/Recent changes

You tagged this page for speedy deletion because the bot which used to maintain it is no longer operational. However, I maintain it myself, and use it daily to check for vandalism of articles on New Zealand schools. There is an alternative method using the toolserver, but this has been unreliable recently. Accordingly, I have undeleted the page. If you object to this, I am happy to discuss the matter.-gadfium 02:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, my apologies I didn't realize you were manually updating it and I agree the toolserver tool isn't that good. Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at the link

I imagine you are aware that snarky comments like this one won't help you gain much respect. Anyway, for your answer, just look at the Arbitration Enforcement comment that Gatoclass linked to. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Orlady. Thank you for taking the time to let me know how you feel. First, that comment is a lot better than the one I started to type and which I probably should have went with. As for the respect comment, I could care less at this point about getting peoples respect. All I want to do is to build an encyclopedia and collaborate with others with the same goal. If people respect me or not, I really don't give a shit. A lot of admins have shown me their true colors of the past couple years so they need to earn my respect back too. Some never will and I am fine with that sentiment being felt likewise towards me. I do more quality edits than almost any 25 admins combined, so if they think they are better than me, I challenge them to step up and show me, not talk shit and sit with their finger on the block button if they don't like my response.

As to the AE, yes I am familiar with that and I am familiar with the extremely poor conduct of several of the administrators who Doncram has had to deal with...including you. Yes his conduct in some cases was less than great but when you have multiple people beating up on you its hard to stay calm. Especially when several of them are admins and supposedly trusted and a lot of the arguments are petty BS about not liking stubs. So for Gato to just drop a note out of the blue with no links or clarification, is pretty lousy admining (if there is such a word).

Personally I think 99% of the Arbcom sanction(s) are garbage and this one shows how truly useless and abusive the Arbitration process is. That is further evidenced by the fact that virtually every single one of Doncram's AFC submissions is approved and the AFC folks had to create a special category to expedite his submissions because they recognized that its a waste of their's and his time to submit through the full AFC process and wait a couple weeks. Additionally, its a further insult to the AFC process that Arbcom has forced a substantial amount of extra work on another group of contributors to appease a few admins and people that Doncram has agitated because they don't like stubs. I hope you have a great day. Happy editing. :-) Kumioko (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That was a good response, Marine! Print it, clean up the language, and use it again somewhere. From a grateful USAF Veteran (disabled). I follow you around, too. Semper Fi! Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB SVN

I've updated the instructions to compile the SVN code. It is located at User:Bgwhite/Sandbox. Hopefully it is a little better. Also, tell me the problem you are having in compiling the #(%&# thing. I use SharpDevelop to compile. Bgwhite (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look. In the middle of something at the moment so it might be tomorrow before I can get to it. I'll let you know either way though. Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject United States: ACW Assessment

I'm in the process of assessing the ACW in the WikiProject United States as "Low". If left unassessed, it is left unassessed in WikiProject Military History. If you feel that it deserves a higher assessment please re-assess otherwise do not remove. Adamdaley (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I removed the importance coding from the WPUS template for ACW, ARW and the US task forces and I was removing the parameters from the articles because you guys don't use it. I think its good to have the WPUS project for a lot of reasons but you all in the MILHIST project are a lot more productive so I don't want to mess things up. If you want me to add it back I can though. I don't know if or when the code will get implemented though. I don't have admin rights to implement the change even though all the work is done in the sandbox, the template coding is very complicated so a lot of even the admins don't want to touch it and I got tired of waiting for the change to be implemented after a week so I removed the edit requested template. If I can't implement it and it hasn't been implemented after a week its not that important. Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many problems that's going to cause. They are also implementing the new login page and Account creation tool today. Kumioko (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to make you another person (or user) on Wikipedia (that I don't get along with). I've tried my best to assess the ACW section on WikiProject United States on behalf of WikiProject Military History. Since it's creating a backlog of unassessed articles. Please reconsider having the assessment for ACW in WikiProject United States. Adamdaley (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good. Unfortunately I have collected quite a few folks who hate the air I breath. I didn't remove the ACW, ARW or USMIL parameters, I just removed the corresponding importance parameters since you guys in MILHIST don't use those. If you want me to add those back I can. I was just trying to make things easier for you guys since WPUS is just limping along. Kumioko (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it, since I don't want to get you off side. Adamdaley (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not upset at all. I'm just trying to make things easier for you folks. I appreciate the help in clearing up the assessments but I also understand that the MILHIST project doesn't want to deal with importance ratings. I had hoped that the WPUS project would be more successful but I think its clear that people don't want to collaborate so I am trying to clear up all the extra crap that's making unneeded work for those that are trying to improve the articles. Kumioko (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the image and listas tag be used in WP:US for ACW articles? Or should the image tag be totally separate? Adamdaley (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Adamdaley For biographies, listas should only be in the biography banner. All other banners use biography's listas.

Ideally, the image tag should be separate in biographies. The People-n-photo-bot will update the image tag to what is necessary. If it is not a biography, then add it to the US banner.

I was already thinking of removing the image logic from most or all the projects. A couple of users generally remove it from the banner and add it to the IMage needed template so there's no point in having logic that doesn't get used much. I can certainly remove it from the ACW/ARW and USMIL projects now though. I'll do that later today.

In regards to the Listas I hadn't thought about that but I can remove that one as well. Your right that its not needed if WPBio is present but would we ever need it for non biographies? Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd keep both in. There are times when you want a listas value in non-biographies. Articles that start with "The" and "List of" would be two examples. Best to keep image in to make it the same as other WikiProjects... people will still add the image parameter because that is what all the other projects do. I love Traveler100's image bots that remove the image parameter and adds/fills the image tag, but they won't be around forever. FYI... Traveler's bots are AWB based and they use your WikiProject AWB module. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I hate the air you breathe. It comes out as the worst bad breath. Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your a funny guy Bgwhite. I don't know why the breath is bad I brush at least once a week whether I need it or not. lol Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HTML5

Per Tech news: 2013-22

• MediaWiki will stop supporting XHTML 1.0 and HTML versions lower than version 5. HTML5 will now be the default language for pages created by the software. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Shreveskyline.JPG

Hi! In fact, when I deleted the page back in 2009, it was available on Commons. Apparently, it has been deleted there yesterday. Honestly, I'm a bit abashed it was deleted with no discussion nor care for the other projects, but considering the deletion reason, I'm a bit wary of unilaterally restoring it. Regards, -- Luk ^talk 08:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I understand. I'll try and find another image. Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

" I could explain in great detail why by giving some Sociological and technical reasons"

If you want to have a conversation about your opinions on our changes, I am happy to set up a Hangout or skype call so we can talk through our differing views and exchange knowledge :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate that and I realize this is easier said than done, but please don't take my comments personally. You seem like a genuine good guy and they were not directed at you nor at the programmers who spent their time (and likely several red bulls) developing these changes. A large part of my problem is due to my growing lack of empathy and the feeling that the site and the community is degrading at a pace faster than we can compensate for. We are banishing our most productive editors with increasing efficiency, we are indefinately blocking large blocks of IP's for minor infractions without empathy and the community environment grows more toxic by the day while most editors and even the WMF seem uninterested in fixing it or often even acknowledge the problems. Those of us that do are run down, insulted and told we cannot be trusted. When the WMF or community leadership does get involved they say they are working on it and either do nothing or implement insignificant changes such as those that came out in the last couple weeks which, good intentioned though they may be, indicate to me and likely to many others as well, that the WMF doesn't really understand the problem nor does it have a plan to fix it. Or that they don't care, which is worse.

Its clear to me that the WMF needs to start by establish a strategic goal and whatever that is, go about planning the implementation of it. If one does exist, its not very apparent in its purpose or in the path to it.

Then folks need to decide what site changes are needed and what's just window dressing. There is a large laundry list of problems with this software and this site, but many have been ignored and energy diverted into things like the WikiLove and thanks. As an example, Why is it that the WikiLove app is more functional, fancier and easier to use than the New page patrol app or twinkle? How much system resources go into the edits generated by that? Why do changes to the software just materialize out of thin air with no awareness by the community that they are even being developed? Why do we trickle them in one or two at a time rather than a scheduled release? If we knew that a change is coming on the first Thursday of every month (or whatever) with the exception of emergency fixes, it would go a long way to eliminating the anxiety felt by the community when these things show up. Its Software configuration management 101. These are some of the things that bother me with the process and no offense to you, it doesn't seem that the WMF nor the vast majority of the community care. So although I have been very passionate about changing the community, I just don't feel that my input outside some comments is going to affect much. I can't even muster more than a couple votes on an RFA after 8 years and 400, 000 edits, why would I think my opinions would have any impact implementing changes to the process? With that, have a great weekend and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in order; Wikilove is indeed functional, fancy and easy to use - but it's not, to my knowledge, a WMF project. Although one of our developers did write it, he did so in his personal time. Twinkle, similarly, is not a WMF project. The New Pages tool certainly is; are you referring to Special:NewPages or the purpose-built replacement we made for enwiki a year ago, Special:NewPagesFeed?

I'd note that a lot of the time we do schedule and discuss them in advance; the problem is, well, we can never hit everyone, and I agree we've been pretty inconsistent at how we approach things. I note that at the moment I'm the only person in Product tasked specifically and exclusively with communicating and socialising software. Resourcing is tight. But, I'd also note that we're hiring 3 replacement mes, so there is hope :).

We've got a lot of plans aimed at toxicity, but there are limits on what we can practically, ethically and legally do to get involved in the community. Again, happy to discuss this at greater length. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well lets look at that. Two, highly useful and well designed apps (although I still question if WikiLove is appropriate or needed in a dictionary, it is still a well designed app) were built on the developers own time and not supported actively by the WMF. Both of which are better designed and more functional that the new pages tool which only gives visibility of 2 namespaces. So its really not even complete. It counts a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be counted and is poorly placed. Going back to WikiLove. I don't really think its needed but it gets a fair amount of use and its well designed, displayed prominently and seemlessly as its own tab and presenting the appearance its integrated into the site. Same with Twinkle. Both are pretty popular, both have a level of completeness. Importantly, both are optional. But it seems as though when the WMF projects are released they are poorly implemented, poorly thought out, poorly designed and "forced". None of which are particularly good. They generally cause a lot of irritation when they are released and a lot of bugs have to be worked out. Its like the WMF skips directly from A testing to production without a beta testing phase to work out the bugs. It would be far better to release a lot of them as gadgets for a few months and let people test and use them for a while. If then, there seems to be a high degree of acceptance and after the flows are worked out, then they can be released. You could even identify them in gadgets or with a new tab that these things are planned for implementation. That way there is no surprises and there is enough time to back out if they aren't going to work. Of course the negative side to that is the community who generally never get a consensus on any kind of change. So if you allow the community to "choose" then the end result will be alack of consensus forever. So you make it clear that these changes "are" coming as an initiative by the WMF to fix whatever problem(s) they are designed for. Its just an opportunity for the community to be aware of them if they want to be and eliminates the surprises, builds in a beta testing (because I think a lot of folks would be willing to do that) process, it gives the community a sense that they are in on the changes and their input is important and it allows the WMF to get a gauge of whether these changes are wanted, needed and useful (like customer acceptance testing). Of course not all changes would be able to do that and implementation would take a little longer. But the result would be a better product with a higher degree of usefulness and user satisfaction. Some might be more appropriate to just be gadgets and never fully implemented. We have a sign hanging in my office that says, "You can have it good, fast or cheap, pick any 2". That saying very much applies here. In this environment I think the best result would be Good and cheap, so it may take a little longer for changes to be implemented. And that's ok. Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How's it poorly placed, and what does it count it shouldn't count? And, yes, Wikilove and Twinkle are more complete. They're also far more simple technologically; as someone who has worked in the software design field, I would have thought you would have been able to identify that. We're already introducing a beta mode. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as placement, it just floats over on the right hand side and generally overlaps text. I find myself having to move it out of the way a lot. It would be better if it was floating at the top or if it gave the user the ability to choose to display it vertically or horizontally. That would also allow some text to be visible instead of Icons users have to hover over to see what they are. Or if it was another tab called Curation or something like twinkle does. Just because its new doesn't mean its better. Forks haven't changed much in a thousand years and there still as useful as they ever were. Its all too easy and common in the IT industry to try and change something because its new and cool. It rarely makes it better, just different. I also don't really think the article curation tool is more complex than twinkle. Twinkle is pretty complex. As far as Flow goes though, it may be more complicated but I still argue that if it doesn't accept templates and or if its going to only apply to one namespaces discussion page (User talk pages) then we may as well not use it. We are too dependant on templates to perform work efficiently and to just replace a template with blocks of text and HTML coding because we didn't design a system that could handle templates isn't a good move. Its also not a good idea to have separate methods for updating discussions. It only makes things more difficult if we start making one page look different than the others. So if we do it at all, it needs to handle templates and it needs to be implemented on alll discussion pages. If it is implemented I think what you are going to find is a lot of users redirecting their talk pages to user subpages so that they don't have to use flow. I cannot see how any of these things are going to make the system better. Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a weird analogy, for a couple of reasons; firstly because everyone else seems to agree it's better, and secondly because I've never seen a community RfC on how using forks sucks terribly. I would suggest you go to the Page Curation talkpage and ask an open question - is it or isn't it an improvement? - if you think that your opinion is something that would itself meet consensus. In regards to the floating, yes, it's going to overlap text. That's why there's a collapse button (one that remembers you want it collapsed on subsequent pages). There's also a close button (same thing). In regards to comparative software complexity - you have, then, looked at the source code and functionality for both?

We don't need templates. Let me be clear; we need the things templates currently handle - the templates themselves are a layer of obfuscation. If we can implement a better way of automating the workflows templates are used for (help and blocks come to mind) we have a solution on that front. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm good for strange analogies. I never really said it sucks terribly (although I suppose it could be inferred that my comments about Flow could be perceived that way in its current state). With regard too the page curation tool though, I think it is pretty good and I said that in the below link. But I do think it could stand some improvements or flexibilities. It also seems to have some overlapping functions of twinkle which I think is a good thing. As for making suggestions, do you mean like this where I made a list of suggestions and you said the WMF wasn't making improvements to the product because they were focusing on other priorities? I have seen the source code for twinkle not for the page curation tool. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I would suggest not arguing it's less technically complex a problem or a solution. And, yes, we're not actively developing it and are actively prioritising other things; it totally needs some more flexibility, but given the hard-coding necessary to make it work with the different templates and policies in different namespaces, we opted to have it work now for the 'main' reviewing namespaces rather than work at some undefined point in all of them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And there in lies part of the problem and one of the concerns I have with things like Flow. The tendency to release it before its ready before its been fully built and tested and then thrust upon the community with the attitude of "Make it work". Now I will be the first one to admin that communication from the WMF is improving. There was a time that hardly any of the WMF folks stepped foot in WP and now its fairly common to see a X (WMF) username here and there, answering quesitons and getting involved. I think its great and so from that aspect it is getting better. As with many things in here though we still have a long way to go. Let's release finished products rather than use the editors as A testers approach to work out the bugs. Let the community have some say in whether we want flow. I think, if you can get it to work with templates and get the other flows worked out that right now make it a showstopper it will be fine. If you can't, then more engagement from the community will be needed to determine if we should have to find a new way to do things or pass on flow. If you guys keep forcing us to take stuff we don't want and which makes the WP experience less appealling you are circumventing the point of making the changes. Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's the problem with Page Curation at all. You are a project manager in real life, surely; are you not familiar with the distinction between a 100% product and a minimum viable product? Releasing Page Curation without support for rarely-used namespaces is not a hindrance; we have not overwritten other functionality. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes certainly it doesn't need to have every bug worked out but I would argue that releasing it with only 2 namespaces doesn't support that argument. I would also say that you are overstating the significance. The category and template namespaces are far from rarely used. Neither is File. All three get vandalized frequently. I can see that we are at an impasse here. My point is you guys keep doing these changes that either aren't fully developed or aren't well thought out and then thrusting them onto the community in complete surprise with the attitude that you know better than we do what we want and need. I'mm sorry you are taking that offensively but it is what it is. Page curation works fairly well but its got some glitches. The talk page notification and removing the OBOD was poorly thought out and implemented and you guys took a lot of heat for that and rightly so. If you release Flow as a mess that doesn't support templates, only works on some talk pages and not others and causes us more work and problems than it fixes because you want to use some sexy programming tricks to make the talk pages look neater in the hopes of attracting new users, you are going to get a lot more heat from the community. If Flow doesn't work with templates or template like functionality, then don't bother releasing it, its not going to be worth it, that's the bottom line. Kumioko (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress

Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

I hope you don't think I was personally attacking you at all in my comment on VPT. I have a lot of concerns about flow, and I too have dealt with a great deal of criticism and am probably not the most popular editor myself. I myself just got off an indefinite block less than two months ago, and I hear what you are saying. The problem isn't with the concerns you address, it's with the tone that you address them with. Calling the WMF team a bunch of blazing idiots isn't going to get us anywhere. Being one that has been tracking Flow on mw: and bugzilla for the last month, I'm afraid I'm not overly impressed with it either. I'll take whatever steps I feel are needed to keep Flow from being a major detriment to Wikipedia. The fact is that flow is probably going to happen, so instead of telling them to forget about it, it is more productive to say, "Hey, this isn't going to work like this because that and the other is how it could be fixed so it might work." As far as your username goes, if you truly want a clean start, the first step has to do with invoke your right to vanish on all of your current accounts. That way when you create a new account, they can't accuse you of socking because the other accounts will no longer exist... Food for thought. Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and no I didn't think you were attacking me and I didn't mean to imply the WMF'ers were idiots. Sorry if I gave that impression. I do think that a lot of them are so far disconnecting from the editing culture that I find it extremely hard to think they know what's best for it. Frankly I am a bit indifferent these days. Its more and more likely that one of these days I'll just stop editing. I'm not even sure why I'm here still. I just don't find it enjoyable anymore so its likely Flow won't affect me anyway. Kumioko (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you reconsider... Editor retention is important to me. I agree that there is a huge gap between WMF devs and the editing community. I think is actually more the editing communities fault than I think it is the Devs... I think I am safe in saying that "most" editors do not report things on bugzilla or comment on things and make notes to bump up the importance of certain things. I also don't see a lot of contributions from most of the people complaining about things on commons:, meta:, or even mw:. If people really want to contribute to the apparent restructuring, those are the places to do it where the dev team is much more likely to see it. Especially bugzilla... As you have seen in the posts in VPT by WMF staffers, if they wanted to they could ignore all of the complaints except on bugzilla... That says mountains to me about the importance of confirming and reporting bugs there... Anyways, if you do decide to evoke your right to vanish on all your current accounts and start anew with less of the drama, I think that would be awesome and "if" someone gave you a hard time about it, I would be one of the first to go to bat and tell them to AGF and knock the shit off... Technical 13 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you really indifferent, Marine!??! Would an Editor who is indifferent about this place take time to sign a petition??? Nope. You are being bullied and watched and followed. You are correct in my opinion about WMF except for a few. You have far more supporters than you can imagine. They probably remain silent to avoid attracting attention to themselves. You and Don... should probably both just disappear for a few weeks; then return with new names. Editor retention is very important; seems THEY want students who don't anything about editing. My 73rd birthday is next month and frankly it doesn't matter to me if I get blocked or not. Editing was my profession and I love to edit. If you look at my contributions you will see changes in grammar and spelling. It gives me time to play computer games. I really should be copy-editing here but I choose not to do so. So stay - both of you. From a USAF Veteran (disabled). Semper Fi! Honor and respect to both of you. Please read my Edit Summary. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support and vote of confidence. Kumioko (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Kiefer

I will respond back at AN. GiantSnowman 15:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your oops

Thanks for this, but WV is not equal to WA ;-) I fixed it.PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Crap sorry about that. Lol I was talking to my brother in Wa when I did it and must have crossed thoughts. Just like Ghostbusters, never cross the streams!. Kumioko (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

HeHe ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW/Archive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:USCOTWnom listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:USCOTWnom. Since you had some involvement with the Template:USCOTWnom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

List of the oldest hospitals in the United States

Hello can you help in this list. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I think that's going to be a pretty big list. I think a good start might be to look through Category:Hospitals in the United States and especially the subcat for National register of historic places. A lot of those are going to be pre 1900 but not all are still hospitals. Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting PUMPTECH about wp:FLOW adrift

I want to thank you for sacrificing the time, at wp:PUMPTECH, to escalate the concerns about the bizarre plans to use wp:FLOW. I suspect that your efforts to "shed light" on many dysfunctional aspects, of the limited Flow-talk interface, will alert countless editors to beware the planned shutdown of talk-pages to no longer be the current full word-processing documents which we use now to discuss text styles, wikitable formats, and wp:charts. It seems their WMF department was planning another "quiet" removal of talk-page access, in the manner of removing the  orange new-messages bar  (surprise, no user-talk notices!). Anyway, if you do go on more wikibreaks this year, then please consider returning on some occasions to voice opinions about other major topics. There are so many new people coming to re-suggest improvements, which had been forgotten years ago, and it is an exciting time here again, and so many people could benefit from your periodic insights. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah their not very happy with me right now. I agree that its likely they would have just implemented it had something not been mentioned and then we would be stuck with it as always. I'm still rather on the fence about staying. I've been editing quite a bit lately but I find myself increasingly frustrated by how hard it is to help out as the backlogs of work for the admins grows out of control. All this crap needs to be cleaned up and fixed and its the same 20 or so folks with the tools that are trying to do it all. But I'll just keep piling it on. I just don't find the place as enjoyable as I used too. One of these days I'll probably just stop. Maybe in July we'll see. If you see a stretch were I haven't edited for a week or so, that may be it. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't go. What is FLOW? You are needed here. Semper Fi! Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CHF Projects

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Mary Mark Ockerbloom's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemical Heritage Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fenn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur

Please don't leave any more messages at this user's talk page. You've been asked not to, and to continue to do so is disruptive. If there are any mandatory messages to go there ask someone else to post. I'll do it myself if it's warranted. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your positive input regarding Rich's block, care if we become friends? Skype or e-mail might do a trick. :)--Mishae (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for dropping a note. I think it would be better if we just interact here for the time being. A lot of folks here don't like me so its not going to benefit you much associating with the likes of me. Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it will, people that aren't being liked here are my friends. You see, I am the same way, I was blocked and harassed by numerous of admins here...--Mishae (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally hate teh us and them mentality that many of the admins have. Not all, but a lot of the most active ones feel that being an admin is just below Ascension to godhood. Its just a mop and bucketm that's it. Their not leaders, congressmen or judges. They have a few extra tools, thats it and the sooner they realize that the site would be a lot better off if they allowed people to edit and participate the better. Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

For that realization to happen we need to stop donating them money, that way they will realise what they are doing. Once the site gets a "pay-per-edit" quo, they will change their behavior. Until then, it will unfortunatelly be like that. Do you know anyone who donates money to the Wikimedia foundation? O' by the way, your warning on my talkpage was unnecesary, they will still find a way to block me just because for my disability, because I am different. Its the way how Wikipedia is, you get blocked for your difference, for your uniqueness, and once every future editor will read it, they wouldn't want to come here and will probably spread a rumour on how evil this project is. Once that will happen they will learn their lesson, and I hope it will happen soon!--Mishae (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I used to but I stopped for much the reasons you mention. And frankly a lot of people already know this place is toxic. A lot of the people where I work know I edit and they all ask me why with stories of how shitty it was when they tried and how they were treated. Truthfully I think that's the only reason I stay is because I want to try and change that perception. Regardless of the misconceptions the WMF has about why we are losing editors it boils down to the culture of the site. If you treat people like shit they leave and they tell their friends not to edit and they often times turn into sockpuppeteers and vandals. It is of no huge surprise to me that as less and less editors show up more and more vandals and sockmasters do. Unfortunately I don't think they will learn a "lesson" by anyhthing that we do. They will continue to stick their heads in the sand and pat each other on the back about how they blocked so and so or protected such and such article. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, some of the editors are in such age that they will retire, and some young ones will lose interest for the reasons you mentioned above. And as soon as they block every vandal the only people that will edit it will be admins, which in turn will retire and will abandon the project as a whole. Thats the reason why I needed your e-mail or Skype...--Mishae (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

csd

If there is what appears to be significant discussion on article subpage, I am not willing to delete it as speedy, and think it is better to use mfd to obtain consensus, because it is not obvious to me where the discussion has been preserved. I have consequently removed tags from a few of the subpages. I may of course not understand and other admins may see it differently, but mfd is the place to find out.. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Comments subpages have been discussed at length before. One more time ain't gonna hurt I guess. Kumioko (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to leave a note, a couple of your fellow admins relied on the still sketchy notification system to do that. Here is a link that helps explain it, Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages. It also has a link to the discussion. I am starting with the easy ones like redirects, blank pages and comments pages of articles that have been deleted. Those were the ones I felt were CSDable. Then I plannned on going through alphabetically and copying the content to the talk page and then submitted the Comments subpage for MFD. There are currently about 22, 000 of these comments subpages so it will take a while. At least a couple months. Most of them don't tell anything, like the ones I submitted. Also, these will still be recoverable. If someone needs to see whats on one all they need to do is as an admin to restore it. Its not like its gone forever. Kumioko (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I soon understood the basis you were using, and I agree with it. When there is no substantial content, there is no reason to keep them,and when there is I agree that moving the contents to the talk p. is a good solution, & if the contents is on the talk p., I have no problems. You can see the ones I declined from my contributions history. I checked one or two, and didn't see the content on the talk p., & I therefore couldn't guess where else you might have been putting it. The ones I declined were ones where I had some question whether the content was substantial, but which you had thought otherwise. I didn't actually try to analyze the discussions, just took a rough guess because I wanted to check all that was there--and I did that.

I wonder if it might be better to have a bot simply move all the content to the talk p., if a bot can figure out where to put it. It would surely move a few thousand that didn't need to be preserved, but that wouldn't do any harm,and it would spare you what must be the incredible amount of work screening and then doing it manually.

I was totally taken by surprise at this, and tried to improvise the best I could. What might have helped is to put a note on WT:CSD, which is one place admins regularly deleting speedy's generally watch. (Like I think many of us, I check AN and ANI only when I'm in the mood to look for some trouble.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. There are some with some meaningful content but most of them are just crap that we don't need to keep and don't add value IMO. A bot would probably be a good idea but if I submit it they would likely decline it on sight without consideration. Feel free to submit it if you want though. I'd be happy to support it. In the meantime I'll just keep submitting them and do the work manually. Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please avoid making personal attacks, like you did in this edit summary. Provide also diffs for accusations you level against other editors: unsupported accusations are also considered to be personal attacks. Fram (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack. Your trolling. If you don't like the way that sounds then stop doing it. Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Kumioko, he didn't say anything that would consider to be a personal attack. I think in this case personal attack accusation is too broad.--Mishae (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when is accusing someone of trolling not a personal attack? Levelling unsupported accusations at someone is also a personal attack. Kumioko has neither retracted his accusations, not provided even a shred of evidence for them (probably because such evidence doesn't exist). Fram (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Add category?

Hi Kumiko! When you added {{WikiProject United States}} to Talk:Mariah Carey, it added the redlink Category:American music articles with to-do lists. Should the category be created, or should the template be changed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice that. Let me look and see what needs to be done to fix that but yes its probably just that the category needs to be created. Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

/Comments

I attempted to remove the tags from all of them, but another admin had already deleted several of them. It's not a big enough deal that I felt like asking for undeletion, but they definitely don't fit G6 — G6 is meant for things like histmerges and pagemoves, not something like this. Any method of deleting them, other than the MFDs you've filed, is a misuse of the criterion; I see no reason to delete them at MFD either, but I don't particularly care enough to go to the MFDs and oppose. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your second message, which you left after I started writing this comment: G6 is called "technical deletion" for a reason, and these aren't deletions that we perform simply because the software doesn't allow us any other method of operation. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note the difference in my comments about CSD and MFD — I see no need for them to be deleted at all, so I disagree with sending them to MFD, but I said that it was the correct way to ask for them to be deleted. It's comparable to someone going to an article about a city, tagging it for A7 speedy, and then taking it to AFD on notability grounds: the first one is a misuse of the criterion (whether intentionally or not), since it doesn't apply to cities, while the second is the correct route to go. I would have no complaint about the AFD for the city, just as I'm not complaining that you filed the MFDs, but just as I think that the city AFD should be closed as "keep" because the subject is notable, I think that these MFDs should be closed as "keep" because the pages aren't hurting anything. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You may not believe it but I do understand the criteria very well and your right, it is a technical deletion but if you look at twinkle or at the page curation tool G6 is marked as applying to the following criteria

• G6: History merge
• G6: Move
• G6: XfD
• G6: Unnecessary disambiguation page
• G6: Redirect to malplaced disambiguation page
• G6: Copy-and-paste page move
• G6: Housekeeping

These fall under Housekeeping. If you don't agree I recommend having Twinkle and the Page curation tool changed. If you have a better suggestion for deleting these please let me know. Because MFD and G6 seem like the most accurate and reasonable route to getting rid of this trash. Unless you can see some reason we will start using these again in the future. Also, your example is completely wrong. These aren't articles about cities. In fact they are not articles at all and the community already voted to deprecate using them and eliminate them. Its just that no one ever bothered to follow through on it. If you think they need to be kept then open on RFC or something at AN or the Village pump.Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be more careful with CSD taggings

You have recreated quite a few pages that were already deleted before, in your current effort to get rid of all the /comments subpages. Examples: Talk:Beagle/Comments, Talk:Bal-Sagoth/Comments, Talk:Bacteria/Comments, Talk:Backmasking/Comments, Talk:Autism/Comments, Talk:Augustus/Comments, Talk:Ant/Comments, Talk:Akhtar Hameed Khan/Comments, Talk:Algorithm/Comments, Talk:Alexander Wendt/Comments, ... Some of these, like Talk:Algorithm/Comments, you had already tagged for deletion before this and were already deleted.

There is an AWB setting "skip if page doesn't exist" which may be useful for this task. Fram (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Fram I already have that setting checked, along with skip if redirect. Kumioko (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you have now changed it? Because if you had it on before you started your CSD tagging, it doesn't seem to work and an AWB bug should be noted. Fram (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No Fram, I said exactly what I meant, it was checked the whole time. This does show 2 things though. If I could simply delete this garbage myself it wouldn't have happened and I had asked for a modification to AWB a while back that would make the page show red in the list if the page didn't exist. But no action was ever taken on that request. This also shows who your next target for an Arbcom case will be. Unfortunately! Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no garbage to delete...it was already deleted...you recreated the page with your tagging. The garbage was there because you didn't pay attention to your tagging. How could you be trusted with the delete ability if you are making simple mistakes like this which should be obvious if you were manually checking your edits like you are supposed to when you edit with AWB. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Djsasso your just spinning this into something more than it is to be overly dramatic of what damage you think I would cause. Which is utter bullshit by the way. If I was manually deleting the page by going to it, then I would see it is or isn't deleted. But when I am using AWB to place a delete tag, then its a bit harder to see it. Particularly when you get a situation like mentioned a few discussions above where I submit the page for deletion, some admin removes the CSD tag, I submit it for MFD, the MFD folks mark it for CSD, an admin again removes the CSD tag and the cycle goes on. It gets rather hard to keep track of that kind of crap when the admins don't even know or have their own individual interpretation of policy. I apologize that I caused some inconvenience for a couple admins. My intention is not, and never has been, to make work for other people. I would rather do it myself but if you and your peers won't let me, so I have no choice but to make more work for other people for things I could more easily and accurately do myself. But if I am doing a bad job getting rid of these articles why don't you and Fram help out? If you both pitched in and put your time and effort where your mouth is instead of using this as an opportunity to insult and degrade me for my efforts, it would go a lot quicker. These should have been deleted years ago. The fact that I am doing it now shows that the admins on this site are overworked and more help from active knowledgable contributors is needed. Not pushing them away.

I would also add that even if I deleted the Main page, or an FA, restoration of the article is one click away and if I did do it you and Fram and others would be after my head and demand the tools be revoked no matter how innocent the mistake or how often its madde by other admins. Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Before making any more AWB edits, reread the WP:AWB page: AWB is not for making controversial edits, and swamping CAT:CSD with nearly three hundred unjustified speedy tags is blatant abuse. Continued use of AWB for this purpose will result in its removal. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The edits are not against consensus because you don't agree. Your reversions are against consensus and need to stop. Your just making more work for others. If you don't agree start a discussion. In case anyone is watchin g this page I opened an ANI thread hereKumioko (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB offers an option to skip non-existent pages. Moreover debug version of AWB can't save newly created and/or blank pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it doesn't seem to always work. As shown above, sometimes the settings seem to override each other and it lets them occur. So making them appear in red seemed like an easy fix. And it does allow new page creation. You just can't do it the standard way. Modules still allow it as does the More append/prepend option. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD

While I do think all the deprecated comments pages should be deleted, could you not have just requested some kind of bulk deletion instead of having like twenty entries? It makes it much easier on commenters. TCN7JM 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The entries could be merged into one group if you want. That's fine with me. The problem is someone has to go through and individually check each one to see if the comments on the page need to be retained so I don't think it would be easy to do a bot or bulk submission. Some comments do need to be retained. Right now I'm mostly focusing on the ones that aren't needed. Also, I am using twinkle so that it tags the page, creates the MFD page and notifies the original creator of the page and twinkle can't do group submissions. Kumioko (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to delete all these pages we could run a bot to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your right we could for the blanks and the redirects and I think there is a consensus for that. The majority have comments on them though and need to be manually reviewed although I think a bot could copy the contents to the articles talk page and then delete it. Again though, not all the comments are appropriate to be copies. A lot contain nonsense, vandalism, BLP violations, or they contain simple assessment info from before we started using WikiProject Banners for assessments. Kumioko (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons for deletion don't really vary between each other. If one is kept then all will be kept and vice versa so please wait for the result of the first 100 you nominated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason they don't line up is because different pages have different problems. The large group I nominated at MFD were all blank. Most were blanked because the content had been moved to the articles talk page where it should be or the contained vandalism, BLP violations or other such problems. I was nominating a few today that had obvious BLP issues, nonencyclopedic content or other problems. I was only going to submit about 10 today and maybe another ten tomorrow. Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The MfD page at the moment can't transclude all templates there and the result is that we can't really close older nominations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh crap, thanks for letting me know. I'll stop immediately. Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move the contents of some of the Comments subpages to the appropriate articles talk page. Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Quantity/sandbox 'speedy' tag

I removed the {{db-g8}} tags from Template:Quantity/sandbox & Template:Quantity/sandbox/doc and explained in detail on their talk pages. Thanks for your consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. No big deal to me. Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your support during the recent unpleasantness. PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Kumioko (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to Comments

Stop re-tagging pages such as Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Comments; when an admin declines the same speedy tag twice on the same page, you're supposed to take it as a hint that you're going the wrong way, and tagging it a third time is not right. Either stop trying to have these pages deleted, or take them to MFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just read your note. Let me remind you that I'm interacting with you purely in the administrative role of declining speedy tags that have been misapplied; I am otherwise uninvolved, and thus qualified to block you for 3RR if you continue reverting. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, your being a child. I will not stop retagging them because one admin thinks they are above the rules everyone else agrees these pages are appropriate for CSD, except you. Multiple admins agree. Your just being pointy because you don't like me. You are wasting time, being a dick and abusing your status as an admin. You are in the wrong here now knock it off. And I am not going to revert again, because of your abusive nonsense. But I am going to take this back to ANI. Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

comments such as you made above, and specially those on Nyttend's talk p., are not going to help things. I do not know why Nyttand feels the way he does about this, except that WPedians get **really** annoyed when it seems people are doing large scale things without sufficient advance notice--some past ones by other people -- not to mention the Foundation-- have been pretty disastrous. I understand why you should get annoyed when someone fails to comprehend a well-thought out project of yours, but the way to deal with it is to be as impersonal as possible.

He does have the right to remove the tag. Any one person, a admin or not , can prevent speedy if they are in good faith, even if they are a single person and everyone else who has commented thinks otherwise. My earlier suggestion holds, to use MfD, I think a group nomination would be appropriate. In a week, they'll be gone. Be practical, and try to accomplish your purpose, not win your point. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

With all do respoect and excuse the lack of AGF here I don't agree. First I think this is due to his dislike for me and has nothing to do with the edit itself. Its simply an excuse to allow him to prevent me from participating in a task that is administrative in nature. Second, I do not agree that one individual can go against consensus. If one editor could go against consensus this place would fall apart. What if the Bureau's decided not to implement an RFA if the community had a consensus to promote that individual, what if the FA folks said no even if multiple folk said the article met the criteria, or if an admin decided to ban an editor because they felt they should be banned against consensus and then reverted every time an admin unblocked them. This is the same. Its simply one user/admin enforcing their personal preference. I would also add that MFD.

The source of my frustration isn't Nyttend. Its the continuing allowance of that sort of behavior, I believe, because he is an admin. If he was an editor, you and I both know he would have been told to stop and or blocked. Because he is an admin though, its not a problem. Its utterly ridiculous.

BTW, I should add that MFD doesn't think they should go there and beleives they should be speedied. They retagged several as speedy and Nyttend removed those as well. Kumioko (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that I am not going to waste multiple editors time, by submitting pages full of vandalism, nonsense or BLP violations because one admin feels like being pointy and because you and your fellow admins don't want to do the right thing and tell him to stop. I shouldn't be forced to waste my time and others time because the system has inadequate checks and balances over its admin cadre adn allows them to act like rogues and then justifies it. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy is one of the things where people have a Liberum veto, but that does not apply to XfD. When someone proposes a speedy at XfD, any admin or even editor can still decline it. Then it waits for a regular decision. Send some and I'll watch them. It's no harder to submit them at MfD than speedy. There is consensus to get then deleted,I'll help you get it; if there is an interpersonal conflict, and behavior is looked at, there;'s no telling where it will go.

There have been many things I have been unable to actually do because one person prevented me. But that a single admin can block something is in fact our check against attempted domination by a clique--that, unlike in 17th c. Poland, it can be over-ridden by process , is our check against a rogue. There have been numerous times one person has blocked an ill-thought out attempt to steamroll something. DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll submit them to MFD then. Its still a pointless waste of time but I guess I have no choice if I want to get rid if this trash. I won't be able to do it until tomorrow night though. I don't have time at the moment to do another scan through the comments pages to find the missing ones. There have been so many reverts I need to scrub a whole new list or risk mixing some in that have already been deleted and then bring more heat from those looking for a reason to block or ban me. Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 18 June 2013

Please to do tag maintenance categories as empty unless you know for a fact that we are finished with this. Future categories clearly are likely to be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, sorry about that. I must have accidentally tagged that one somehow. Kumioko (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: WPUS coord tag

I probably should've explained that in an edit summary to prevent a misunderstanding, but I see you noticed that I added the coords to the article. My bad! Spencer^T♦C 20:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More unnecessary parameters

|class= doesn't need "Cat", "category", "template", "portal", "file", "image" etc anymore. Now namespace is automatically detected by the banner itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, according to my notes, I finished removed nested from all talk pages today. I'll wait for the next database dump to confirm it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's great news. Glad we were finally able to get rid of nested. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

class category not needed

As I wrote above we don't need to add class category anymore. It's redundant and auto-set by the banner itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, I only fill it in when I am converting the template. I don't do it just for the sake of it. It does tend to make it easier to code for changes though if I have a definitive item as the parameter criteria. Otherwise it takes a lot more effort to fix some things. Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, your right it the template doesn't need it and will still display based on the namespace but the categorization of the WikiProject doesn't. So although the template will still display Category, it shows up in the Unassessed Class or Unknown importance categories for the project if not set. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then we only need to fix the template code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WOSlinker may help with it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But its still only a small issue IMO because I only do it when I do something else at the same time. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When WOSlinker fixes this it will make life easier not only for you but for a lot of people. Less pages to show up Unassessed Class or Unknown importance categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, I frankly don't think too many care. It seems like only a couple of projects are even looking at these categories anymore. 99.999% of Wikipedia these days seems like a bunch of individuals. Very few want to collaborate any more. Its like the Wild Wild West using blocks instead of bullets. Gotta get them before they get me mentality. Plus, since there seems to be a strong attitude that projects can be forced to change by people who aren't members of the project why would they want to be in a WikiProject. Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The same holds for template class. It it auto-detected. By the way, I noticed you remove spaces from comments in talk pages. There is no need to. The only result is to make larger diffs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Autodetection has the benefit that if the project decided to go from NA-class to Category-class or the opposite, we only need to change a line in the code instead of running a bot to change all pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As far as I know the namespaces that automatically set the class and importance are Category, Template, Portal Project, Book and File class articles. Not sure about FM but it might too and while we are on the subject I think it might be worth adding Module to that list as well. We don't have a huge amount of modules yet but its reasonable to think that as we replace templates with modules the need will arise soon enough. In regards to the autdetection argument that is a good point but since we already have the majority with the data filled in a bot would still be needed.

As for the diff size. I'm not really worried about the diff size. I generally only do that while I am there doing other bigger things so that shouldn't be an issue. Kumioko (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Broadly construed

I don't agree that "broadly construed" is useless or abusive. It's meant to invite attention to the spirit of a ban, because it's difficult to foresee all the ways a ban can be skirted or lawyered. Compare my comments here and here. Do you consider them abusive? Do you have any examples of the "broadly construed" language being used to justify abuse? I agree that it could happen, but I think an admin that did so would be taken up sharply and be reverted or forced to recant. Admins, too, are supposed to attend to the spirit, not the letter; "broadly construed" doesn't allow them to wikilawyer, either. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

No I disagree. Broadly construed is an invitation for abuse. Regardless of the utopian intentions by a few, there are 1400 admins on this site, many with differing interpretations of policy. Broadly construed is just a fancy term for :at the discretion of the admin" or " whenever you feel like it". No I do not consider you comments abusive, but you are one of 1400 as I mentioned above. If you want the honest truth its the folks at Arb Enforcement I am most worried about. They have a history of doling out long blocks or bans for far flung associations of broadly construed. So do some of the other more block happy admins and unfortunately more often then not, nothing happens to the admin. There have been several occassions where others even said that it was extreme or inappropriate yet nothing was done. The bottom line is broadly construed is an unmeasurable term. If they break a rule and go before Arbcom then it must have been for a reason, we should be clear in our punishments. If they wiggle around it or wikilawyer then the sanction can be adjusted appropriately. We shouldn't through out this huge net that does nothing but make it so any edit the editor does is a violation. People edit the topics they are interested in. If we are interested in History and are sanctioned from it, we are unlikely to pick a topic that isn't associated in some way. Broadly construed makes it so that its almost impossible for a sanctioned editor to return. Historically, of all the sanctions given out, only a small handful have even been able to continue to edit because of this lousy broadly construed language. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I meant to ask was, do you have any diff examples of the "broadly construed" language being used to justify abuse. That would make it easier for me to appreciate your point, because I find it a little general and abstract. Also, do you see how in the comments I link to, I would have had trouble dealing with attempts to squirm under/around the ban (or possibly good-faith misunderstandings of the ban, I never feel sure), if it wasn't for the "broadly construed" phrasing? Thus, for me, it wasn't useless. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

Yes I do, several of them. But I doubt providing them would change your mind or change the use of that language in sanctions or decisions. Someone would just say well excuse A, excuse B or well that's the way we are going to do it so live with it or whatever. Excuse me for my bad attitude but I have grown extremely tired and frustrated with the double standards of the rules being applied one way to editors and another way for admins, "broadly construed. Admins violate the rules and excuses are made as to why they can't be held accountable and then we use terminolgy against regular editors that's so loose any 5 people would have a different interpretation. Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. The way Pumpkin Sky's current arbitration request is being received is a good illustration of admins getting cut more slack than regular editors, IMO. I'd weigh in and say so, but researching and writing up that kind of thing takes a lot of time, and I'm simply not sufficiently committed to this website to spend my life taking up arms against everything I see here that looks wrong. Especially not RFAR's that are obviously going to be declined no matter what. I pick and choose. Maybe you don't, and that's certainly honorable. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

I do try and pick and choose but there are so many things going on at any given time sometimes my OCD gets the better of me and I comment on more than I really should. I also agree that to properly document and comment on these takes time that most of us don't have. Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The usual remedy in which "broadly construed" is used has to do with a topic-ban of an editor who has had a history of tendentious editing or personal attacks in a particular area, and the desire of the ArbCom is to ensure that the problematical editor does not cause any more trouble in that area. Since the ArbCom's mission is to prevent further damage to the development of the encyclopedia, they have three choices. They can site-ban the editor, which was common in 2005 to 2007. They can impose a narrowly construed topic-ban, but then the damage will continue in the peripheries. They can impose a broadly construed topic ban, which is what is now commonly done. Would you prefer that the topic-bans have to be gradually expanded by repeated arbitration appeals, using more time by the ArbCom while the edit-wars continue? Would you prefer that problematical editors simply be site-banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle that it should work that way but often times, and in fact most of the time it is used as a means to limit the users ability participate and maximize the admins ability to block them at their discretion. Very few editors ever survive a "broadly construed" sanction because, frankly, its nearly impossible to do so and continue to edit. There are about 1400 administrators and as such at least 1000 ways to interpret policy. Unfortunately of those 1400 its the same roughly 30 admins that do 95% of the admin work. This means that a lot of power is in the hands of the few. This also limits many of the other "admins" from participating. I don't think they need to be gradually expanded but I think they need to be clear and if it needs to be adjusted because the editor is finding a way to wiggle around it then that can be done in an expedited fashion. If for example an editors participation is problematic with regards to their work with images, and we think banning them from images will just make them work with Videos then we should say they are banned from working with Files including images, videos and other media formats and if need be we can go on to limit them to not be able to edit captions or placement of files within articles. But if we just say they are banned from editing images "broadly construed" with the intent that it is limited to uploading images, how is that helpful to anyone? How long do you think someone will block them for editing the article about the Mona Lisa or changing a caption in an article. Unfortunately that scenario is often-times exactly what happens because the people writing the sanctions want to take a lazy approach at crafting the restriction. Additionally when crafting sanctions they should have a time duration. That could be indefinate but it could also be a year, 6 months or whatever. In most cases, the editor would probably be more productive if they saw a light at the end of the tunnel. A chance at doing what they enjoy doing at some point in the future. Otherwise, they will likely try and do something else related to the thing they enjoy doing. Because we are all volunteers and people usually do what they enjoy doing. Asking someone who enjoys working with Files to start writing articles is unrealistic but that's exactly what we expect them to do. Kumioko (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look and let you know if I have any suggestions. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bot-ism

Hi, sorry to ask what might be perceived as an affront but are you a bot or using some sort of WP:BOTASSIST? Your recent edit history suggests as much. Not that there's anything wrong with this but I'm surprised that your edits don't have the bot tag and there's nothing about it on your user page. It's hard to imagine that you're making all of these rote changes by hand. You don't include links in your edit comments to "WPUS/USPP" which makes your efforts rather unclear (although I think I understand what you're doing). Even if you are it might be helpful to describe your efforts prominently on your user page, at least while they're ongoing and shortly thereafter? --Nstrauss (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bots must have "bot" in their username. Kumioko does not, so he is not a bot. The talk page tagging is something Kumioko has been doing for years. He also uses AWB (edit summary says AWB), which does most of the work for him. Also, he is not going all that fast. There is nothing technically wrong in what he is doing. If he's assessing wrong or adding the Wikiproject banner to wrong articles, that would be a different matter. Bgwhite (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bgwhite and Greetings to you Nstrauss, I am using AWB for some of the edits but mostly just to make it easier to go from page to page. Its not a bot but it is a semi automatic editing tool (it has automatic functionality but I am not using it) I am still having to do a lot of manual work on the pages to fix various things. So yes I am actually doing most of it by hand but AWB has a lot of features that help to speed things along and I have some custom code that does some of it. Basically WikiProject United States Public Policy (USPP) is shut down. It was a project that was designed largely to test out the functionality and feasibility of a multi criteria grading system for articles. A grading system that IMO is much to complicated and time consuming. So, since most of the articles tagged with the WPUSPP banner are US related I am going through and adding USPP to the WPUS banner within those articles and cleaning up the talk pages a bit while I am there. Many of the articles aren't assessed so I am doing that as I go too. I did remove quite a few though as being out of scope of WPUS such as Homeland security and Homeland defense (which I also suggested be merged and globalized because the topics are too US centric at current). I am down to about the last 150 or so articles. I hope that describes the effort but please let me know if you have any more questions. Kumioko (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I was sure it was completely legitimate. Perhaps you should put this explanation on your user page and link to it from your edit comments? --Nstrauss (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could do something like that. I do a lot of different changes though so I would have a pretty huge list of things to point too. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be if you're doing similar edits n times as part of a larger effort and there isn't space to adequately describe the edits or the effort in the edit comments, then you should write a brief explanation and link to it from the comments. I don't know what n would be... perhaps 50? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I do between 5, 000 and 10, 000 edits a month and I do many runs that are hundreds or thousands of articles long. It would still be a big list. It does seem like a good idea though to keep a running tab of my projects so I'll think about how best to do that. Maybe creating a couple subpages, not sure. I'll try and do something though to make it a little more clear. Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nstrauss (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Zacara da Teramo -- comments page, thanks!

Thanks for moving the comments from the composer project to the talk page for this composer. I had never seen them before in their hidden place and they're interesting to read. Best -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, I'm glad you found it useful. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal biography

I left a question at Portal talk:Biography. I hope you don't want to add the portal logo in 1 million pages manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. No not really. I was just kinda doing it along with other things. Frankly, its an excuse to fix some of the more minor problems that we can't fix unless we do something that "changes the page". Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dual tagging?

What's the logic of tagging articles for both the US Public Policy Wikiproject and a "public policy" subproject of WikiProject United States? (I'm puzzled by the tag you added at Talk:Tennessee Plan.) --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Its mostly because the USPP project isn't active anymore so that that articles supported by that project are still covered by someone. Not all, but a lot of the articles that were covered by USPP didn't have any other WikiProject tags on it. There were also some that were outside the WPUS projects scope that I didn't add. Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That still makes no sense. Why would you link to the same project twice. The one in the US tag is unnecessary if the other one is already there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is your assessment then you don't understand how WikiProjects are supposed to work. If the project isn't active then no one is actively doing anything to improve that article or maintain it. Adding them to the WPUS project allows some visibility of the article outside the Inactive USPP project. If you feel strongly that article should be tagged then feel free to remove it. USPP isn't adding anymore articles to it so I was only going to do one run through. With the exception of about 40 or so left I have already tagged the majority of those I intended too. Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something. It appears to me (from its project pages) that the Public Policy Wikiproject is still functioning. I don't see a notification on their talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy to indicate that they were being declared inactive and being subsumed into Wikiproject United States. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be why they put the big tag on the top of the project page saying "This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page." The projects purpose was primarily to test out a new assessment grading criteria. That has been done, so they archived the project. When it started it was designed to be a limited duration project. Also, read under the section "Happening right now". I would also add that they are not being "Subsumed" just that the article would have multiple projects supporting it. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake! I was fooled by the fact that the project page displays current article alerts. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with you adding the US wikiproject tag. What I find to be redundant is having the USPP=yes in its tag as well as having its project tag on the page. Because all it does is add a second link to the same project page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

But it also gives a clear association in case they are at the talk page, don't get a reply and might want to go to a WikiProject to get further comment from alarger group. Or want to improve the article and don't know how or [insert reasons for a WikiProject or collaboration here]. I would also add that the WPUS template has a lot more functionality that they other USPP template doesn't have. I wish there were more bot tasks going to do cleanup and maintenance too but unfortunately the bot operating environment has become so nasty on here the operators are folding up shop faster than the bots can be replaced. Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems you two/three have a communication problem what the issue is about. It is about that one tag (US) already includes (via a flag option) the other (USPP) therefore either the option flag or the other tag should go. I'll opt for removing the tag and go right ahead. Saying that, it is perfectly normal to have WPUS and some stateproject tags if they are not covered by the option flags. Agathoclea (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I am so tired of the constant battles over article ownership and removing of WikiProject tags by editors and expecially admins who should know better and who seem to be averse to collaboration, that I really and truly don't care if you remove it. I am trying to help build up a collaborative project but I cannot do anything about folks coming behind me and tearing it down. Soon I expect someone else to come along and remove the WPUS tag as "out of the projects scope". I put that there, in a naive attempt to give editors who might be interested in collaborating a place to go other than an unwatched talk page or a dead project. I can see though all it did was give some of my "fans" an opporunity and excuse to throw WP:AGF out the window and come and complain once again about my horrible editing. Please feel free to remove any and all tags I leave in attempts to collaborate that violate your personal space, make you feel less of an editor or in some way make you feel icky and uncomfortable. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that Agathoclea has started removing the old tags, so that pages will not longer have two tags for the same project. That resolves my concern. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a sad state of affairs that you have to fight so much, and I ran into quiete a few of those battle rams over the WPUS issue myself, but this time we are all on the same side. Agathoclea (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to remove them that's on you. If I tried it someone would use it as an excuse to block me. I would recommend being careful though. Some of those have the additional and experimental assessment criteria that the USPP project was "testing" (that I hope never ever gets implemented by the way). I would not recommend removing those. Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[EC] I spoke too soon. There are still quite a few pages that have two tags for the same project. Is there a plan to ask a bot to remove the extra tags? (For background, I am very accustomed to seeing old WikiProject templates get replaced by WPUS templates, but I couldn't figure out why WPUS was being added without removing the old template. If I had been told that this was going to be done by bot, that would have resolved my concern.) --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't planning too no. Getting a consensus to remove a banner is a much different animal than getting consensus to add a banner to a talk page as a Joint project. If there is a consensus to remove the other ones then I could easily do so, or I would be happy to provide some code to do that. However, as I said above, we would need to take extra care to ensure that the experimental assessment coding isn;t needed anymore. If there is a need to keep it I would leave it. If not, we can surely remove it with little trouble. It only took me a couple days to tag them with the WPUS template, it would take me much less to delete the old tag. Kumioko (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

1. P.S i only removed the one. Actually it only becomes a real issue if there are conflicting importance ratings which sends the WP1.0 bot spinning producing a lot of unneeded output. We had about two pages a day of fake reassesments when I joined the project ages ago which gave me something to get my teeth into :-)

2. Komioko makes a good point about the extra features - I did check if there where any extra flags setm which there weren't inthe case i edited. The old ones usually where redirected to the WPUS tag with some additional logic which then caused the effect I described above. Anyway Agathoclea (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree the importance rating can cause problems. That's why I intentionally only added the USPP. I didn't even add logic for the USPP importance to the WPUS template. If we need it, then I can work that up in a couple minutes in the templates sandbox and You, Orlady or one of the other admins can implement it (don't get me started on that). :-) Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anytime, but I don't see much need to expend much effort on a defunct project. Agathoclea (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB fixes within <score>...</score>

Please note that this edit did not observe the special syntax used within the <score>...</score> tags. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, could you take this to AWB's bugs page. You know about <score> and could answer questions and phrase the problems better. This is a problem with AWB's logic and with score being so new, I'm sure there are other problems with AWB's handling of it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Crap, I had't read up the watchlist yet. Somebody already filed the bug. But if you could follow up on any other possible problems. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, actually I didn't know that about the tag score template but yes I'll follow up on it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kumioko (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB's next release will exclude score tag from typo fixing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my apologies I just thought it was a typo. I didn't realize that tag needed it. Kumioko (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Random act of smileness

Hello KumiokoCleanStart, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what I did to deserve that but thank you nonetheless. Truly appreciated. Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AWB Unavailable

Hey, I reported once about AWB is not working in [2]. But after I leaving three error messages, not responding at there. Could you do me a favor about that? 乌拉跨氪 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I can take a look but I'm not sure what I can do to help. Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VE

If the WP community came to a good consensus that the preference should be "on" by default to hide VE as default, thus pretty much making it opt in for everyone, technically the developers would follow that (hopefully) since it's a preference change.

Whether they'd actually accept such a consensus (when even new editors hate this) is another question. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Its unlikley the developers would follow that consensus. Technically they don't have too. One of the things that the community cannot dictate are changes to the software or hardware for running the system. Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the precedent seems to be (off the top of my head: giving crats the desysop, turning on hotcat for everyone [then turning it off], etc) that they do follow. If they don't follow it if/when there is a strong consensus to disable it, then there's a fundamental problem with the WMF team who's pushing this upon us. Hey, we agree on something! ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the best we could hopefore is the ability to turn it off under preferances. Welcome back by the way. Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome (I think). Has there even been a RfC or something about VE that I've not seen? ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No but there have been a bunch of notices on relatevely low visibility locations like Village pump tehcnical, the WMF blog, the signpost, etc. So the WMF knew it was coming, I guess that's all that was important. Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"relatively low visibility locations" is the problem. There was an WP:AN notification for the A/B test, but nothing after that... Considering they had a lot of notifications for WikiData and other things, the view I've been getting from this whole thing is "how do we cover our butts and push this out regardless of data (which we aren't releasing until we "review" it) and peoples' wishes?", but I'm sure the WMF wouldn't do that. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It was also on everybody's watchlist notice section. Where else would you want a notice? Bgwhite (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the watchlist notices didn't go to a lot of people. My biggest problem with it actually isn't the notice. Its that they released this software knowing there were still huge problems with it. Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt many people read those. I for one skim it to see if it has the words "an RfC is taking place to ban Charmlet" or anything else that I know applies to me, then I hide them and they stay hidden. Nobody is going to read the actual watchlist notice and say "holy shit this applies to me". If anything, they'll read it and say "where the hell is the community consensus enabling this", then realize that it's being forced down our throats by the WMF. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I too think it is being released too early. They label it beta, which is too soon for a wide release. Maybe at an RC stage.

They have sent plenty of notices. If you choose not to read it or turn it off doesn't make WMF's fault. I cannot blame WMF for not sending out enough notices.

It is not being forced down our throats. Being forced would be turning off "source edit" and only having VE. Being forced would have AFT5 on every page. All this does for us is clicking "edit" in a slightly different spot. This is the usual "something has changed" mentality with a vocal minority (usually) of editors yelling I don't like it. It is the same thing that happens everywhere else in the real world when something is changed. VE has been coming for several years and it actually is a feature that has been requested. Are there somethings I'd like to see changed? Yes. I'm going to be clicking "edit" instead of "edit source" on section header for months to come. I'm probably going to use AWB even more to edit individual pages. Overall, I can't complain about the rollout except it was done too soon. I think WMF works in the we have to release by a certain date instead of when it is ready to release. Unfortuneately, they are no different from most software companies. Bgwhite (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On break

No fancy messages, no drama but this Visual editor stunt by WMF has me frustrated so I am going to walk away for a while. Just wanted to let folks know in case I don't respond for a while. Let's face it, I'll be back. Kumioko (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I'm sure it was not personal. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Simple English wikipedia

Hi. I just recently went through the online World Book Encyclopedia, which includes a page of "outline", for the list of articles it includes in its outline of mythology/philosophy/religion. The list can be found at User:John Carter/World Book articles. The first section places the articles in order of number of paragraphs found in the last, 2010, print edition, and the second section includes the articles by sections of the outline in which they are included, which named subarticles included after the name of the main article, and an indicator of the paragraphs for all. Those which are lists of subarticles are included in sections marked "(title) (article)". Like I've said elsewhere, I've never been entirely sure if Simple English wikipedia were intended as a "linguistic" wikipedia, or as a "scholastic" (basically high school and younger) English wikipedia, but I do think that if the latter this page might be of some use there, if you are yourself still at all active there. Yes, I have myself noticed that some of the outline matters are open to question. Jesus Christ, for instance, is not included in the Christianity section, but in the Bible section. But the overall list is possibly at least a good starting point for a scholastic type encyclopedia, if that is what Simple English wikipedia is intended to be. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Who took who to RFAR?

Kumioko, sorry, re WP:BN, you got two RFAR cases conflated. It was User:PumpkinSky's proposal to desysop Doc James that had just been shot down.[3] The Hex proposal (a while ago now) was initiated by User:Anthonyhcole.[4] Can't say I blame you, with all these well-founded and yet declined RFARs flying around. Bishonen | talk 02:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC).

Wow your right, I guess I haven't been spending enough time on wiki these days. Been trying to break away but its not really working. :-) Thanks or straightening me out. Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Validation Question

I'm relatively new to Wiki and delighted to have found an article on my house (Wesley Chapel - Hopetown Oh). We bought this historic church building in 1993 and have been working to make a residence out of it for two decades now. I have attempted on two occasions to add some of the research we have done on the property to Wikipedia, only to return later and find the information deleted, with no explaination as to why or by whom. May I ask what must be done (substantiation, documentation etc.) for my posts to remain?

Thanks

Roger McDanie (Greek2Me)

Greetings and welcome to Wiki. I think you have 2 potential problems here. First its a bit of a conflict of interest but that isn't as big of a deal if you have references. I think the second and bigger problem is likely the sources of the information. If the info being added is considered original research or hasn't been duplicted in what is considered a trustworthy source, then that's probably whats causing it. I'll take a look at the article and see if I can give some better advice. I don't actively deal with that sort of article but if you talk to User:Orlady, she deals a lot with buildings that are Historic. She could probably provide some good sources that could be used to build up the article even. Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Broadly Construed

Hey - I've seen you question this concept several times. Have you considered writing an essay that explains your objections to the term? WP:Broadly Construed for example? If I were in your shoes, I'd start by explaining how it's used on Wikipedia and it's definition in Wikipedia terms and then move on to why it's, in your opinion, disruptive and unhelpful. Might be a way to help others see your point of view on the topic.--v/r - TP 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in anything here except gaining more control, gaining more tools, showing how important they are and degrading the environment here. I'm no longer interested. Maybe if the WMF pulls their head out of their ass and starts making changes that make things better instead of implementing half assed software changes that are months from completion things will change. The community doesn't care and Arbcom is a major part of the problem. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind joining this discussion?

This. Thank you! Tinton5 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to recheck that. I added those a long time ago, when the article was going through FLC. If the image is ok for the article itelf it should be fine to identify the individual on a list. Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

taking the first file in the list that I removed, File:Lewis Albanese.jpg is allowed on Lewis Albanese, it isnt allowed on List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War. See WP:NFCC #1,3 & 8. Werieth (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kumioko accusing other users of trolling and harassment for asking him to provide evidence for his claims. TCN7JM 00:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry you feel that way and that is the biggest crock of shit that I have ever read but thanks for letting me know about it. You should go reread the rules on harassment and badgering of votes and comments if that is how you really feel. Kumioko (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh I didn't notice at first but now I see the connection. A Roady coming out to protect one of the project members. A typical response from that project I expected...although it did take a little longer than I thought. Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, man, I don't know what you have against USRD, but despite my association with the project, I've brought this up at ANI because I am seriously concerned about your behaviour in the CU thread. I do not act to "protect" Rschen7754, as I don't see what bringing the issue up at ANI would accomplish in terms of that. TCN7JM 01:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First, my conduct wasn't a problem. I gave my comment and if Arbcom ignored it I would have been perfectly fine. But instead they decided to hound me because I opposed. That not only violates WP:Civil, but several other policies as well as hounding. Its just wrong and members of Arbcom especially shouldn't be doing it. As for the USRD project, several members of that project (not you) have a long history of issues with harassment, ownership, bullying and a variety of other things. They even had a venue for a while to shut down other roads related projects that were done by the states. When a couple states bucked back the "Roadies ganged up on them and forced the project away. So although my problems with that project aren't directed at you, that project is a problem. But yet here I am, submitted to ANI because I voted to oppose Rschen because I don't trust him. That is what I mean by utter bullshit. Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places ratings

Hello, just a simple request. When you add assessments for new USA articles, would you mind (1) checking to see if their subjects are on the National Register of Historic Places, and (2) if they are, adding a {{WikiProject NRHP}} tag as well as your normal WP:USA tag? The NRHP wikiproject has been trying to put together a scheme for understanding our article ratings better, relying primarily on the article ratings, but for some reason the scheme ignores all other projects' ratings completely. If you were to tag articles for the NRHP project as well as for the USA project, it would probably make it a lot simpler. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I can probably do that to some of them but generally I do them after manually determining what tag they need, Arizona for example. I could also start adding some of the NRHP ones though. Where would I verify they are on the NRHP? Should I just go by the lists or do I need to verify them off the website? Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What if you simply tagged articles that use {{Infobox NRHP}}? This is something that you really shouldn't spend extra time doing, unless of course you actively want to. Most NR articles use the infobox, while both non-NR sites with the infobox and NR sites without the infobox are comparatively rare — rare enough that you need not worry about them. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I just looked in AWB and there are 43+ thousand articles with the NRHP infobox and 50+ thousand with the Wikiproject banner so since its over 25000 I can't do the compare in AWB since I don't have admin rights. But that does show there is a discrepancy so I'll work on that for a little while and see if I can fill in some. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but this is more than I was asking you to do :-) I was simply saying "if you're already tagging an article, please check for the infobox", not asking you to start a big project. I've found a bunch of discrepancies in Ohio, which has lots of articles tagged for WP:US but not WP:NRHP. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Its no problem. WPUS is barely limping along. But I'll try and do that. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FirstHealth of the Carolinas

Hi. It's very clear that the article is from a new editor who thought he was working on a draft and not a new article. In the spirit of welcoming new editors to Wikipedia, and ignoring all rules, would you, as nominator, be amenable to userfying and an early closing out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FirstHealth of the Carolinas? -- Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's totally fine with me. Do you want me to do it or do you want to do it? Kumioko (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As the nominator, if you could close it, there would be less questions. I'll help userfy the article. Thanks for the quick response! Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Its done. I moved the article under the users name and closed the AFD. Please let me know if you need anything else. Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the cross space redirects left behind in the move for speedy deletion. I think that should take care of everything. Thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't believe I did that. Kumioko (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Is it possible for you to add two templates at once like here, and just switch the state?--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Just a couple questions though. When you say switch the state what do you mean? Also, which ones would the WP years go on? Would it include anything starting with a year or just certain things? Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Update beer

Mmmmm, updated beeeeer, ahhhh. That had to be the most disappointing edit summary ever. Get someone's hopes up only to dash them like that is pure evil. Bgwhite (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I couldn't resist. Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Well, you withdrew before I had an opportunity to poke my nose in. I think you're going the wrong way about this and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you over email. Up to you - the only thing I bite is my food, as you know already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Its ok. Really. I think Dank has a valid point, I doubt I'll stop editing but I need to think about investing my time where its wanted and quite beating a deceased equine. Maybe over at Wikia. Kumioko (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you need any admin jobs doing occasionally, you can always ping me - but please no hist merges! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep you in mind. There is a listing as long as my arm of stuff to be done but I'm not going to worry about it. Someone will get to it eventually. There's no sense of urgency in this place so if it takes 100 years its fine. Kumioko (talk)

(talk page stalker) From my frequent ignorant requests for all sorts of technical assistance on ANI and elsewhere you might not think it, but I actually can do history merges. (Though I probably can't do half the things Kudpung can do.) It's my one trick. :-) Feel free to ask me also, Kumioko. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I put myself in as the first support. Admin should be no big deal but it is, and for the reasons I noted there it needs folks like you. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the problems with this dysfunctional anarchy we have to suffer with is that wiki never forgives and never forgets. PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's more complicated than that. But fixable. North8000 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget my previous observation/offer/idea. For better or for worse 5 savvy people can get 99% of anything done in Wikipedia, including fixing lots of things. North8000 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See the "confused" thread on wiki. 99% of wiki is not fixable. PumpkinSky talk 02:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you mean, but I respectfully disagree.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Your both right. Wiki never forgives, never forgets and I'l probably never get the tools...but I'll keep trying anyway. One of these days the backlogs and project will be more important to them than holding a grudge cause I hurt their feelings at some point. I would say one thing though, 99% of the Wiki is fixable, but we as a community re unable to do it. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant the thread here on my talk page: User_talk:PumpkinSky#Confused PumpkinSky talk 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have nominated templates for deletion in wp:categories for deletion. XOttawahitech (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought those fell under the special notes section like stub templates since all they really do is categorize. No big deal though, remove them if you want. Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Qing conquest theory

Hi, Kumioko. Although "Qing" is the name of a dynasty, the phrase "Qing conquest theory" is a neologism: you won't find it anywhere but on Wikipedia. Kanguole 17:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That term is not a neologism. A neologism is a series of letters that stands for something, similar to an acronym. But where an acronym is sounded out, like Laser, NATO or AIDS, a neologism is sounded out by the letter like FBI, CIA or UFO. So although I agree that term is probably only found here, its not a neologism. Nevermind, I guess it could be a term but if its only found here, then it probably doesn't meet our notability criteria and probably should be submitted for AFD review. Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're identifying neologisms with acronyms, when a neologism is actually a new word or phrase, or even a new usage of an existing word or phrase.[5] Kanguole

Yeah I was confusing it with an initialism...too many -ism's fogging up my brain. :-)Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I agree this is a neologism though. If its printed in half a dozen references, some of which are fairly old then its not really a neologism. I agree its not a term in mainstream use but I wouldn't consider it a neologism. Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase does not occur in any of these references (or indeed anywhere else outside WP and its mirrors). Kanguole 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it would, IMO constitute original research and should probably not be here. Kumioko (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's something in that, but this article has already survived an AFD. Kanguole 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Userbox templates in Template: space be nominated at TfD or MfD

This is a quick notice to inform you that there is a WP:RfC being conducted at WT:Templates for discussion#RfC: Should Userbox templates in Template: space be nominated at TfD or MfD that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and thank you for starting the RFC. I don't anticipate it'll change things but its worth another discussion all the same. I left some comments. Kumioko (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

JW

Has the authority - whether he chooses to be Pilate or Solomon is the issue now. Two different types of judges, and he has free will. If he simply says the case was procedurally deficient, he could save face and not claim he diminished the authority of ArbCom. Or he could simply call for the bowl of water. But, in the end, it is up to him. I have been cautious and moderate in my posts and statements, and trust those who have been immoderate will not affect this course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah its really no big deal to me in the end. We can leave the wording in there but we could also add in that people can Ask Jesus for help and the result would be about the same...long periods of silence and frustration. Personally I think Arbcom needs to be scrapped and replaced with something more fair, level headed and less time consuming but in all liklihood it will porbably be exactly the opposite that occurs in the future if things continue as they have been. Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How JW is viewed in future is in his own hands - not ours, and it is not up to us to make his decision for him. Collect (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well no but he has stated plainly and on multiple occsasions that he won't overturn a decision by the Arbcom and that he thinks their doing a good job. So I think we may as well settle into the fact that Arbcom is the end of the road for debates. There is no appeal, there is no higher court and there is no hope!. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at it this way - he specifically stated I have the right to appeal to him. Else Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes is literally true with regard to equity on Wikipedia. But you are right, he can always get the bowl of water out. And all shall see it. Collect (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MfD of /Comments subpages

/Comments pages I've been deleting still either are linked or transcluded into the parent page, but with no visible link or transclusion. I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of expressions related to death/Comments as delete and deleted the page.[6] The What links here button shows "Talk:List of expressions related to death" links to the deleted page. Do you know how "Talk:List of expressions related to death" links to the deleted page? Another what links here of a page I just deleted shows the deleted /Comments page being transcluded into the parent page, but I could not find the transclusion. I think it is being done through the Banner Template:WikiProject India, which some how uses Template:WPBannerMeta/comments. It appears it is through the Comments=Yes parameter at Template:WPBannerMeta. Your MfD posts note that the use of comments subpages was deprecated years ago. (Do you have a link for that?) Would you please confirm how deleted /Comments pages are being linked/transcluded into the parent talk page. I would like to try to fix it so that deleted /Comments pages no longer are linked/transcluded into the parent talk page. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whay those are still showing as linked. You might try and do a null edit to Template:WikiProject Death and Template:WikiProject India and see if that jars it loose. I'll ask a couple folks and see if I can get some answeres. As for the deprecation of comments subpages there were quite a few discussions about that but the main one is here. Kumioko (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In your MfD posts, you now can use "The use of comments subpages is deprecated. See Talk page Comments subpage." If the Comments subpage can be deleted without a need for maintaining attribution (e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Uttara Kannada/Comments), let me know and I'll delete it so you don't have to post at MfD. As for Comments subpages that have content that cannot be speedy deleted without further action, I revised Deletion and redirection options to provide a way to use CSD G6. Technical deletions while satisfying the attribution requirement (provide a complete list of authors of the original content by copying the history of the /Comments talk subpage is the key - see Copying from other Wikimedia Projects). I noticed that there is nothing in Template:WPBannerMeta/doc under COMMENTS that indicates use of /Comments subpages is depreciated. That probably should be revised so that Template:WPBannerMeta no longer promotes use of /Comments subpages. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and your right about Template:WPBannerMeta/doc. Someone should probably mention something there as well. Kumioko (talk)

And I found out why those are still showing under what links here. The job queue is messing up and it could take hours to weeks before Wikipedia reflects the changes. So it will display correctly eventually whenever the job queue catches up. Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That explains why the MfD tags on the target pages are remaining redlined. On the Comments subpage speedy deletes, perhaps take it slow at first, only going after the Comments subpage that have only one edit. If there's no resistance to that, they you should be able to move through the Comments subpages much quicker and eventually clean them all up. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's kinda what I am doing. There are currently about 25000 pages give or take a few with comments. About 2500 are blank, a bunch ore have nothingn but BLP violations, vandalism or nonsense. Those are the ones I am focusing mostly on now. Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well...

...I always wondered what my userpage looked like to the rest of Wikipedia and those who came to view it. I guess I now have my answer :)

On a more serious note, I thought I'd swing by and to see how you're doing and to suggest adding your name to the milhist coordinator election. I think you'd be a good candidate for milhist coordinatorship, and who knows, it may help tip you next rfa toward a pass. Of course its entirely your decision to run, but I would encourage you to think about it all the same. If have any question or comments, you can drop me a line or swing by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I even gave you credit although I did change a few things just so I wasn't a complete copycat.:-)

I sincerely appreciate the thought but I doubt more than a couple would agree. My Wikireputation isn't what it used to be and I think we both know I will probably never get access to the admin tools. Its not going to stop me from trying but its doubtful unless some major changes to the RFA process occur and editors with 6+ years on the site and 450, 000+ edits can be trusted. I have been too vocal about admin abuses and system problems to ever get enough support. I'll swing by and cast a vote or 2 though. Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What actions are you proposing?

Can you identify what actions you hope to take place as a result of your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=572345958&oldid=572345108 comment}? If I read it literally (which is often a failing of mine) you are encouraging people to give up trying to make changes. Let's imagine you are successful. Will this be a better place if more people give up?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No feel free to try but its going to fail just like all the related RFC's in the past because we need to fix the process and the system first. I have an extremely sour attitude about the us and them mentality that a lot of admins have and I have made no secrets about that. Not all, but a lot, act like regular editors are little more than vandals and can't be trusted unless they get the tools. They have the attitude that whatebver they think is correct because they are admins, not necessarily because they are right in their point of view. That is an observation by the way, not speculation or an opinion. Right now the admins have too much power so they essentially control everything. Largely because a lot of the 1400+ admins also represent a large chunk of our expereinced editors who watch the boards where these votes take place. Unless a high number of those admins are willing to vote for a change, the change will fail. Since this one directly erodes the power of those admins, they will not vote for it. So the problem isn't just that the admins won't allow it, the problem is also because our system favors the admins heavily. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you have a sour attitude. I sympathize with the reasons why, perhaps more than you know. What I do not get is why you feel the need to express this thought every single day.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, which may well not be worth much, it is counter-productive. I can, and will support you for template editor if we can get it through (in fact, the draft has some wording which would exclude you, and I am going to try to change it, specifically thinking of you.) In contract, I am unable to support you for admin at this time, partly due to your penchant for expressing negative thoughts all the time, but hope I will be able to change that position in the future. I've said my piece, and have several other fires to put out, so may not monitor this space.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is worth more than most to be honest but frankly, the reason I express it often is 2 fold. First, silence doesn't change bad things (policies or otherwise) so if we keep quite, it will never be changed and as they say the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Second and probably more importantly I sat quietly as I saw things happening around me for a long time, years in fact. Even as I saw them getting progressively worse I didn't do anything about it. That time is gone, now for good or bad, I am going to be vocal about fixing these problems and if that means some get tired of hearing about it or even if I have to occassionally tell someone point blank they are being a dick, because they aren't listening the nice way, then that's what I will do. If that costs me the chance of getting the tools, because I hurt some feelings and some editors think I shouldn't be allowed to be able to see deleted content, to block vandals or participate in maintenance areas, then so be it. But remember that doing so harms the project because I am extremely active in it and I have a wide breadth of knowledge, years of experience and hundreds of thousands of edits. If its better to give the tools to people who edit once a week or once every three weeks and that are too meek to stand up and try and fix the problems, then this place doesn't really need editors like me who are. Its better just to have a few admins hiding in the corners and let the back logs continue to mount. Which by the way, the backlogs only represent a fraction of the actual problem. There are large percentages of articles and content that has problems we haven't even identified. I do appreciate you thinking of me with the template author thing and I hope it does work out. I'll certainly come and vote for it. But as Dank saw recently and as I have seen happen many times in the past, this will not pass because there are too many vested admins or wanna be admins that will find a reason to vote it down. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it. It should also be noted that many of the "fires" here are because there aren't enough active people with the skills necessary to maintain the project to prevent those fires in the first place. And it would be better if we didn't have to delete the 55, 000 stale AFC drafts 50 at a time because only a couple people are watching that category. To name but a few. Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject United States

Template:WikiProject United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fram (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Broadly Construed"

You've mentioned several times that broadly construed is too broad and too ambiguous that it sets a trap for whomever is under such a sanction. So I've had an idea. I'm not sure if it exists as a tool yet, but there is a game on Wikipedia called the 6 degrees of Wikipedia. I think it would be possible to create a tool that could take any article and calculate the number of links it takes to get to any other article. Then when we describe "broadly construed", we could define it in terms of the number of clicks it takes to get to a topic. So for the recent Tea Party Arbcom case, broadly construed could mean any article that has 2 degrees of separation from Tea Party. What do you think?--v/r - TP 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing its possible, but at the same time, if we can link to nearly any article in X number of links, are we really expected to check through the What links here tool to see if it is on the list? I think its an interesting idea though. Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't need to. We'd just pop the article subject to discussion and the article subject to discretionary sanctions into my proposed tool and it would tell us how many jumps it takes to get from one article to the other.--v/r - TP 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to lurk, but you can't be serious. Under that "closest relation" (one jump) includes hundreds of unrelated articles. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It could work. I think we would need to test the theory but I can already see where there is going to be collateral damage. If for example I am banned from Tea party articles but one tea party article links directly to Indiana, would that be a violation because its within one click? I still see this as being too open to abuse by those who are just looking for an excuse to block an editor they don't like. As much as some people want it to not be true and hate me for saying it there are a lot of admins who use their tools for their own gains. If the community isn't willing to enforce that the admins not use the tools abusively, and allow and encourage that to occur, I see this as being more beneficial to the abusers than the individual editor. Aside from that I'm going to start sliding away from here more and more anyway so fighting for what's right on this site is less interesting too me. Especially when so few care about doing the right thing and are more worried about backing up their wikipals which I see every day in ANI and other venues. I'm editing a lot more at Wikia and am finding it quite pleasant so the drama of this place is becoming less attractive to me. Regardless of my feelings about the projects purpose itself the project doesn't want or need my help. Its going to implode no matter what I do at this point. I'm guessing before 2015 Wikipedia will have devolved sufficiently that it won't be practical to maintain. Perhaps at that point Wikia will take it over and relaunch it as Wikiapedia or something. Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to follow the admin abuse train of thought because I've had that thrown at myself several times. As far as your question, I see your point but we can do forward recursion only (not backlinks I mean) and we could cut out the geographic phrases. I could test if an article is a geographic article by it's infobox, the geo coords template, or a variety of other ways and then ignore those strands. So Tea Party linking to Indiana wouldn't return anything if we were trying to go from Indiana to Tea Party. Indiana itself would have to link directly to Tea Party. We could open this conversation up to VPT and get a whole variety of feedback on how to tweak the tool to be effective.--v/r - TP 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah either way it would be interesting to see if it would work but I wouldn't spend too much time. If the WMF has their way between Flow and Visual Editor this place is going to be forced out of business soon anyway. Then it can go to Wikia and make mone instead of cost money. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I agree with North8000 that wouldn't work as proposed. It would be way too easy for someone to sandbag another editor by adding a hard to find link in an obscure article link from the first page to the second one. Technical 13 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, the tool could show the pathway and it would still be subject to community discussion. And we're only going 1 direction here. I may need to write the thing to demonstrate it. But the "hundreds of unrelated articles" that North8000 mentions don't matter. All that matters is from "Article A" to "Article B". The flow back from B -> A would not be a consideration and the unrelated articles from A -> C+ also wouldn't be a consideration. Simply the path from A -> B.--v/r - TP 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • And @North8000: I am quite serious and I have the technical background to be competent about what I am talking about. Whether the results would be useable is a matter of debate and I'm of the opinion that they are so I'd appreciate if you'd hold the suggestions of how serious I am.--v/r - TP 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to question your abilities. I meant that you can't be serious about the underlying premise that an internal link indicates a relationship, particularly for the purposes of the title of this section. An internal link merely indicates that the word was used in the article and where a link explaining it might be useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If we linked every word, I might agree. But we don't. I think a prototype and a few test cases are needed if this is going to even be able to be discussed by the community so I'll look into that and I'll seek input once the idea can be tested for accuracy and validity.--v/r - TP 17:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

FLOW and talk page templates

Hi Kumioko, twice now I've seen you claim that WP:FLOW will eliminate talk page templates, such as WikiProject tags. But the FLOW documentation says "Current plans indicate that there will be... A place for an 'introduction' to the page, which can contain free-form text, user boxes, templates, etc." So where are you getting this idea that anything is going to happen to talk page templates? --BDD (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: VisualEditor and its user interface exposure

Hi.

I was skimming Special:Permalink/573229751#The WMF response to the Visual Editor RFC is disappointing and insulting and Special:Permalink/573233282#Wikimedia response. Both were pretty much what I expected: a lot of outrage over a "+1" to m:Limits to configuration changes, really.

However, I'm not sure all options have been carefully considered here. There are many methods of disabling VisualEditor, most of which can be implemented by local administrators. I'm not sure how "Wikimedia's response" is relevant and I don't see why anyone would feel it necessary to wait for it in order to act. I'm namely thinking of:

1. editing MediaWiki:Common.js and/or MediaWiki:Common.css to simply hide VisualEditor-related elements from the user interface, effectively disabling VisualEditor (security through obscurity); or
2. (arguably more productively) setting up AbuseFilter filters that, rather than tagging bad edits, simply disallow edits that might mangle a page altogether.

Regarding the former proposal, if you can find someone willing to the write the necessary code, surely a local administrator would be within his or her rights to implement such a change, given the community discussion. (Or so the argument goes, in any case.)

Regarding the latter proposal, it focuses more on the effects of VisualEditor rather than the tool itself. That is, it can be helpful to be agnostic as to how someone is editing (mobile, VisualEditor, lynx) and instead simply focus on the result of their edits. If your edits add twenty pawn characters to an article, let's just stop allowing those edits. They're simple enough to identify, surely.

In any case, pretending as though the Wikimedia Foundation is the big bad guy doesn't seem very reasonable to me at this point. You have local power to hide—and effectively disable—VisualEditor by using local (elected) wiki administrators. The ball is not in the Wikimedia Foundation's court, it's in yours. (Now, if the Wikimedia Foundation is foolish enough to edit war over such changes, then a "big bad guy" label may be appropriate, among other measures.)

If you cannot find any local administrator willing to implement your local changes (either to site-wide CSS/JS pages or to AbuseFilter filters) in order to fulfill the RFC, you will have effectively allowed (or implicitly endorsed the continued use of) VisualEditor. :-)

Hope that helps. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(cc: Jdforrester, Kww, Black Kite, The Rambling Man)

If anyone can provide me with a safely tested change that hides VE from view for IPs and non-autoconfirmed users, I will take the responsibility for implementing the actual change to the common files. I'd have to think hard about a more widespread disabling in terms of whether it is legitimate to claim that it is mandated by the RFC.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like the code in common.js would look like

if (autoconfirmed() === 0)
 {
   mw.user.options.set('visualeditor-enable',0);
 }
else
 {
  mw.loader.load( 'ext.visualEditor.viewPageTarget.init' );
 }

function autoconfirmed()
 {
  var userGroups = mw.config.get( 'wgUserGroups' );
  if ( userGroups ) 
   {
     for ( var i = 0; i < userGroups.length; i++ )
      {
        if ( userGroups[i] === 'autoconfirmed' )
         {
          return(1);
         }
      }
   }
  return(0);
 }

—Kww(talk) 01:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The JavaScript is elementary, but it seems completely sound to me if your goal is to actively disable the user preference for all autoconfirmed users.

I'm not sure quietly changing users' site preferences is a good approach, broadly. Some very simple CSS can do the trick, though it would probably take some futzing around to get it to apply to only particular user groups. To be honest, I'm not really sure what you all (whoever "you all" is...) are trying to implement. My point was mainly that you can do it (when "it" is a form of disabling VisualEditor) on an admin's say-so alone.

I tried to grant you adminship on the test Wikipedia, but I got an error: "There is no user by the name 'Kww'. Check your spelling." --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If it did what it was supposed to, it would let autoconfirmed users control it with the existing preference, and force if off for IPs and new editors. Sure you didn't miss read "=== 0" as "=== 1"?—Kww(talk) 02:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. It would actively disable the user preference for all non-autoconfirmed users (including anons, I suppose). With JavaScript, you'd ideally only execute mw.user.options.set() when necessary, not execute it on every page load. I'm also not sure you can specify .load() like that in an else branch (it probably won't break anything, but... in this current environment, I believe the init script is going to get loaded no matter what for all users). I still think CSS is probably a better approach, but this isn't my problem to solve. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to import pages and run some tests on the labs cluster (cause afaik test doesn't import actual real pages), or give you the rights to do it yourself. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added it to common.js on the test cluster, asked someone to test it, and it doesn't load for logged out editors from what he said. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The javascript doesn't load (i.e I really screwed up), or VE doesn't load?—Kww(talk) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol, VE didn't load :) Feel free to go test it (it's a different SUL) if you want. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, tried in my private common.js, and screwed everything up. I'm now unable to get VE to load even when I beg it to.—Kww(talk) 03:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I should patent this. My other machine works fine; Chrome works fine. But the browser I started on won't get VE going. I've cleaned caches, restarted browsers, delete my common.js, logged in and out, everything.

Anyway, if someone can figure out a technique that actually works, I'll bear the responsibility of actually making the change.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Simply critiquing your code, this is a saner implementation of your autoconfirmed() function (where group is the string 'autoconfirmed'):

    function inGroup( group ) {
        return mw.config.get('wgUserGroups').indexOf(group) > -1;
    }

I'm guessing there are probably some race conditions with loading and stuff, you might do better if you wrap stuff with mw.loader.using('mediawiki.user', function() { stuff; }); Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not something like this?

/* Hide VisualEditor for anons and new users */
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgUserName' ) == null || mw.config.get( 'wgUserEditCount' ) < 10 ) {
    appendCSS('li#ca-ve-edit, \
               .mw-editsection .mw-editsection-divider, \
               .mw-editsection .mw-editsection-visualeditor \
               { display: none; }');
}

Perfect is the enemy of the good. I tested this code at test.wikipedia.org and it seems to work just fine. It will cleanly hide VisualEditor for anonymous users and users who have fewer than ten edits, while leaving user preferences untouched. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor has been made opt-in for all users (cf. Special:Permalink/574255799#VisualEditor now opt-in only for all users on English Wikipedia). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Progressive Barnstar

		The Progressive Barnstar
		I couldn't find a barnstar that would adequately thank those involved in making the template editor user right RFC a reality, so I created this new one. The Progressive Barnstar recognizes those courageous enough to work towards a vision for change at Wikipedia. Kumioko, thanks for your pessimism :) which actually served to remind us all of how delicately and precisely to handle the proposal. I consider the proposal a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome. equazcion (talk) 06:28, 18 Sep 2013 (UTC)

United States WP:Banner

I have an idea of reducing the requirements for the WP:US which can be found here: User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 3 on that talkpage of mine. It reduces the Universities to just placing "|Universities=y", Capital Cities as "|Capital-Cities=y", and Regional Cities as "|Regional-Cities=y" and since I'm doing the ACW having Confederates as "|ACW-CSA=y" US Federal troops as "|ACW-US=y". The last two can be tweaked. Have every state and territory listed. I'm open for suggestions. Adamdaley (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

USA

I hope you read this Kumioko. Long ago I made a massive push to get the assessment of USA done, a few bumps threw me off when it never should have. I just read about the attempt at its deletion and was considerably shocked by it. As a result, I am going to finish my assessment work, if you are able to mentor me in tagging and other administrative operations related to the project, I would be very happy. It may be a bit late, if you truly have left, I only discovered the matter today. The desire to maintain and improve Wikipedia in its core functions, independent of content, is something that few editors truly desire. It is part of my reason for taking charge in A&M subjects. I simply do not believe editors who contribute nothing to a Wikiproject or are a detriment to the operation should be allowed to determine the fate of anything. By the sweat of your brow untold millions of people have furthered their education because your edits have provided a path for improvements to be made, directly or indirectly. Those who work behind the scenes to operate the play are just as important as those who are on stage. I'll fight like hell to complete the task and make WP:USA's assessment template useful for the international studies by treating it like a textbook. Top, High and Mid should reflect subjects of varying degrees useful to those in general international interest, citizenship and study and a deeper study, respectively. This cannot be done at the state levels, this cannot be done in any other capacity and the operation and maintenance must be done periodically to ensure stability and relevance of the assessment. I believe there is a way to maintain it easily, but I lack some training. Even if you do not get my message, I will continue to do what I can to improve Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi ChrisGualtieri, Kumioko hasn't edited for a while, but if you need general help figuring out how to deal with the banner, you can leave a note for me or ask more generally at WT:COUNCIL. The "importance" (or "priority") ratings are important to the WP:1.0 team, so that's another avenue for finding answers to questions you have. From their perspective "Top" means "offline releases should always include this article, no matter how poor it is" and "Low" means "offline releases should almost never include this article unless it's reached FA", and everything else is somewhere in between. My other rule of thumb is that Top-rated articles should be less than 1% of all articles. So those two rules of thumb might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems that led to criticism of the US Wikiproject was the fact that importance ratings assigned by small projects that got adopted by the US WikiProject got propagated up to the US Wikiproject. As a result, pages like Geology of Massachusetts, Hillerich & Bradsby, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, McKinney, Texas, and Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders are now incongruously identified as top-level importance for the entire United States. A compounding problem is that, due to the complexity of the nested Wikiproject templates, other users can't always figure out how to correct these things manually. --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to resolve that issue. Once I finalize a plan, I will make a proposal and treat it in terms of textbook importance with increasing specificity for High and Mid importance ratings. I've already manually removed a bunch of these, but found some that are indeed mid or high level importance. Individual states should be High whereas Culture of the United States is TOP. Somethings like state weather patterns were also in TOP, but this can be maintained with some care so it won't be so bad in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

{{WPMED}} took merged-in projects and new task forces and gave them all their own importance tags, which are separate from the overall project's importance. Do you know if the WPUS banner already set up to accommodate this separation? (I might make the main articles for all 50 states be top-importance, myself, but it's up to you all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:US has separate importance tags for the subprojects and sub-sub-projects. However, at some point in the past, if one nested subproject had an importance rating for an article, that rating was automatically propagated to all of the other projects. As a result, pages that are "top" importance for (for example) the Texas Tech project automatically became "top" importance for the entire United States. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Medal of Honor
Thank you for quality articles on recipients of the Medal of Honor, for quoting the wisdom "We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back.", applied to an honorable oppose, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 February 2010 and 22 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 276th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. I include you in those remembered on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but after editing for more than 6 years I now look back at the time I spent here as a waste of my time. I appreciate the award, but I wished at this point I would have never started editing. Good luck to you though. Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the good wishes, luck needed ;) - I think understand what you mean, but I would not regret what I gave so far. (I was close to leaving four times, once a year, - I knew why I mentioned "bitterness of defeat" a year ago.) - This is no reward, of course, but the memory of a reward, and the memory of the two people who inspired it, missing. Good luck to you for the better things you do now, and thanks for showing up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

I have started a discussion about some of your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#Kumioko socking. Fram (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and since I will be blocked soon. I want you to know and I doubt this will surprise you that I think you are one of the most abusive admins on this site. Your tools should have been revoked long ago and you should have been tossed from the site. You are manipulative, you frequently exhaggerate the facts to suit your own POV and purpose and you are responsible for hundreds of thousands of useful edits not getting done. You are BTW one of the admins I am referring too that should have the tools revoked along with Rschen, Guerrilero, CBM and several others. None of you should be able to Block or protect pages because you all use them abusively. All the other tools are fine though BTW. Guerillero sure as hell shouldn't be on the Arbcom and should be a functionary. I'm glad he and CBM don't do much, the project is better off without them. In the end, you will probably succeed in getting me blocked and you all will be able to continue your cycles of abuse. I recommend targetting User:Koavf next. He has done a lot of editing so he must be doing something wrong. Certainly violating edit rates with AWB. Kumioko (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CCI

Hey. Saw your note on that front, and figured I probably didn't explain what I had meant. There are copyright investigations that do require admin help, whether it's due to needing revisions or articles deleted or history merges that were unattributed. A good number of them, however, are good faith editors that had close paraphrasing issues where the references are provided. For these, all you would have to do is use the Duplication Detector to see if the issues remain in the article with the added sources, and reword if that's the case. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100307 would be a good one to practice on for that reason, as most of the early edits are long gone from the article and any recent ones still have references that work.

As for one last point, the most active user at CCI that isn't me is User:MER-C, a non-admin, take that for what it's worth. Wizardman 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As I mentioned before, I have tried to help out there in the past but I found it takes 3 times longer of my time to do it. Because if I find something, I then need to draft up something convincing with links and evidence, then submit it, frequently get into a discussion about it, then eventually someone might take the action needed. The bottom line is if I can't have the tools to do the job I don't need to be doing it. Its great that some have found a way to work around that, but in my opinion if my help was wanted or needed I would have access to the tools I needed to do it. As I stated somewhere else though I'm basically fed up with this place though. I would also note that Duplication detector isn't perfect either. I had found many times where I tried to use it and it flagged something as a copyright violation but was really a government work, copied to another site and called copywritten. It used to be a big problem with the Medal of Honor citations. They were copied from Government sites to the Home of Heroes site and then the detector would flag them, then someone who didn't know what they were doing would delete them and I would have to create a discussion to prove they screwed up. I have seen cases like that at least a dozen times in the past few months I just ignored them. Most were military related BTW but not necessarily Medal of Honor recipients and no I don't remember what they are. I just shook my head and said to myself that figures. Basically though I'm not needed or wanted on this site, that has been made very very clear to me. So my activity is going to be basically gone. I will probably reply to a discussion from time to time but mostly as an IP. That's part f the problem with the system here. If an editor with abut half a million edits and 7 years on the site can't be trusted, then its time to go. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

I think I may have accidently removed a large chunk of your text while trying to fix an edit conflict. I sincerely apologise. I have reverted Irondome (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for letting me know. Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:RfA

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I do think you're way down in a rut and not helping your own case for reform at this point. Kudpung has stated a couple of times that you are a nice guy face to face and that you did a lot of good for the project and helped a lot of people. But retirement combined with gadflying rubs a lot of people the wrong way, no matter the circumstances, and you're now well into saying repeatedly that you don't care a fig about the project  ... but you're going to tell us at length your opinion on aspects of it, anyway. Please, walk away for real, for a good long time. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss specifics. (I would feel more comfortable discussing your admin candidacies one-on-one anyway; but I'm also quite ready to be used as an example of a mediocre admin and taken to task for it.) You have prided yourself on speaking truth to power; now's the time to recognize that you are just repeating yourself, and that Leaky caldron was himself speaking some straight truths. At least leave that page alone for several months, please. If only to let events marinate so that who's right on what can be more clearly demonstrated. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have no intention of running for admin or participating in this project at this point. Yes I may do the occassional edit or comment in spurts on discussions as an IP. But the community has worn me down to the point where I don't want to contribute in this project anymore. I do agree that I should leave for a while though and stop wasting my time commenting. Unfortunately its just a waste of time commenting in those discussions anyway because no matter what anyone thinks of my comments, nothing is going to come out of any of those discussions anyway so it really just amounts to a waste of time. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do consider the hard truth that - at this point - your commenting is hurting rather than helping. I know you care despite yourself; that's why I'm being blunt and saying this. Do remember I am e-mailable. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I frankly don't think you or Leaky's distracting comments in there are helping much either. But yeah, I am going to walk away at this point because I don't honestly think anyone wants to fix the system except me. Most don't see it as a problem, which is probably the most unfortunate fact in all of it. But intended or otherwise I am just taking this as another hint from the community that my help is no neither needed nor wanted. A hint that too many editors get too often on this site and is one of the biggest reasons why we are seeing drops in editorship. If admins and entrecnched editors are allowed to simply force out those they don't agree with, you are left with nothing but a crowd of yesmen and ultra conservatives that don't bother to speak up of fix things for fear of being pushed out. Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you just aren't seeing how detrimental your personalization is to the argument. Throwing personal attacks ("clowns" is a clear example) and edit warring over the position of a hat? However, I'm trying one more time to talk you down, because it looks as if you've managed to confuse me with Ymblanter. As a result, you may owe him an apology. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do get that but unfortunately I also don't think you and Leaky understand how your comments, which are focused solely on my and your opinions of me, are detrimental to that discussion. You 2 seem to actually think it was a benefit, or simply don't care and refused to drop the sticks and move on. You 2 don't like me, I get that, I do. But we don't need 5000 words in the middle of a discussion on the RFA talk page. You are right I did and I confused Leaky with you as well when I added my desciption when I collapsed that discussion. I also wasn't edit warring. I was replacing a comment that was incorectly moved that was a direct reply to werespielcheckers. Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I accept the implied apology regardless of the assumption that you know how I feel about you :-). However ... you're the only one defining your case as essential to discussion there. That's the personalization I'm referring to, and it's having a detrimental effect. Your point has been made; step back. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't really matter if I get blocked at this point I'm just an untrustworthy editor anyway. I've been told that repeatedly for trying to improve the project. No reason I shouldn't get blocked too. Kumioko (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't been blocked then you're just not trying hard enough. Eric Corbett 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I must be doing ok then cause I've been blocked several times...I think I am about due for a ban soon.:-) Kumioko (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you need to get back on the front foot and stop feeling sorry for yourself. Eric Corbett 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What I really need to do is just stop editing and walk away frankly. Its more and more clear to me that this place is going into the toilet and no one really cares. They definately don't care what I say anymore. I've shouted it till I'm blue in the face (maybe I should change my user name to Pappa Smurf....THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!) I mean Smurf Village...I mean Sparta...I'm so confused. :-)Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't shout, I hear you ;) - I got a nice recommendation for a different user name, made an infobox around it. I asked myself rather recently if I could reasonably support this projects any longer, - you can guess my answer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This particular incarnation is clearly on its last legs, and one can't help but wonder what will happen when the English Wikipedia, the WMF's flagship product, collapses. I believe the Spanish Wikipedia forked some years ago, and it's looking increasingly likely that the German one might follow suit. Eric Corbett 23:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah when the Visual Editor abortion got launched Germany was ready to unplug for the WMF...the WMF quickly backed down on their push to force the Germans to use VE. Volksenpedia anyone? Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RfA and editor retention research

Hi Kumioko. Sorry that the community has been biting you lately. I do want to say that there are many people that do appreciate that you're still here. I just stopped by to mention there's some research going on regarding RfA and editor retention over at meta:Research:Ideas/Requests for adminship and the retention of long term editors and I thought you might be interested. In reading the talk page there, it seems like they are looking to get some more data on the issue. Maybe check it out if you have the time. Things are a lot more friendly over there. Best. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm not holding out hope anything will come out of that. Plans to reform that joke of a process have been tried and failed for years. I' not going to waste my time getting involved in another one of those. But I'll keep my eyes open and see what happens. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments as an IP

Hi Kumioko. I've been catching up on various discussions and I noticed several where you (or someone I think was you) left comments as an IP. I recognised you as the writing style and what you have to say is familiar (you have said some of the same things many times before), but it can be difficult to follow such discussions without knowing who is who. Ideally you would log in, but I know you don't always feel like doing that. Would you at least be able to add your name if you are leaving comments as an IP? That would help keep track of the discussions and who is saying what. It would also help make your track record in such discussions clearer as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but one of my New Years Resolutions is to stop editing here at all, even in discussions. So hopefully after this month it won't be relevant. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was reading what Yngvadottir said here. I happen to agree with what they said. If you do decide to take a long break and stay away, I hope you manage to gain some perspective and a new direction, or come back refreshed. About the things you feel strongly about, it can help to set them down in an essay, rather than repeating them many times in different places. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I honestly feel like I am just wasting my time commenting these days because no one really cares. Plus with all the problems I see in the project I don't see it lasting more than a couple more years unless some drastic changes are made...and Visual Editor and Flow are only going to make things worse. Plus with all my commenting about Arbcom, AE and abusive admins its only a matter of time before an Arb motion is placed on me and I think we both know it wouldn't be hard to find a justification to ban me from the site. Kumioko (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you too! Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WPUS

There must be a severe problem with Wikipedia user participation, considering about 50% of the Wikipedia contributors come from the US. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you want it tagged inactive like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment? Maybe it will spur action? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Any of the other dead state WikiProject tags can use this too. There's also the semi-active tag. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:, It doesn't matter to me if you want to tag it go ahead. Someone already tagged a lot of the supported projects. I did a couple others. Your right that there are participation issues and there are a lot of reasons for that. But that's one of the reasons I gave up on the project(s). No one was around to help and I got tired of being the bad guy. Add to that I had to take a knee and kiss the ring everytime a change needed to be done to the template. Contrary to the belief of some the projects size wasn't the issue but when people are intentionally undermining the project and no one wants to enforce policy, then you end up with a dead project. Good luck all the same. My plan is to leave Wikipedia completely in the next couple days. I'm shooting for 1st of the year but we'll see how long that lasts. I usually end up coming back eventually so we'll see if I can keep from making mysef a lier this time. Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as semi-active. I'll give 7 days, and if nobody comes it goes to inactive. Considering how broad the US is, it'll be a wakeup call. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to bring you down but I doubt it. Given the number of people who voted to delete the template and break one dead project into 75 smaller dead projects here I think the likelyhood of any wake up calls for the project or its members are slim to none. But maybe you'll have better luck than I did. Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Whenever a project is tagged as inactive it effects the entire template. Look at Talk:Raise_the_Red_Lantern and "Chinese-language entertainment" is marked "inactive". Click show and it says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment, a project which is currently considered to be inactive." It sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, in light of this, has there been a consideration of forced-merging of projects that remain perpetually inactive? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the projects that are inactive I am aware of have already been merged in. There are a number of others I would consider to be inactive like Florida but a few editors wanted to keep them separate mostly out of hubris as far as I can see because they don't do anything to keep them up. I honestly wouldn't put much effort into the project but its up to you. The WikiProject concept was good in its day but its outlived its usefulness since most people these days just want to work on their own. Most of the WikiProjects should just be deleted so people will quite fighting about who owns what articles and what they can put on them (like portals and WikiProject banners and Infoboxes). All three of these templates fall squarely into the who gives a shit category so no one IMO should be fighting about them, but it happens almost everyday. If we do away with WikiProjects then we eliminate all that drama. Anyway I won't keep you. Good Luck and happy New Year! Kumioko (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You too :) - The criteria for active or not does rest on whether responses are swift. If someone makes an inquiry at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston I'd probably answer, even though most of my other colleagues there haven't been around much. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP user said it's semi-active and that the evidence of past discussions should show that. I reminded the user that it is good to respond swiftly to queries, as 5 days passed between the question about the novels and when it was answered. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Move like this

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I liked your movement, - one link goes to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we need one for you? - Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? - had to happen on the 28th --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No thats quite alright the only image I am going to get from anyone is a trout like this one for sticking around for so long and thinking this place would change for the better. Its not even a nice clean, shiny, meaty trout. Just bones with a brick at the bottom for that extra punch when I get slapped with it. For extra irony you'll notice that it was uploaded by Russavia, one of the few users who is loathed as much or more than I am.

138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a brilliant picture and reminds me of the one for a fish restaurant in Portugal: delicious food, open air, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This one was taken near a military base in Russia, you'll notice several large naval vessels in the background. Just FYI, I scrambled my password and removed my email so I am not going to be logging back in nor will I be replying to comments here much longer. If you don't see a reply, that's why. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday (NYB, under my poetry), that's why I asked. Feel included top of my talk. First link: the image was taken in memory of the scuttled. Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I definately fall under a couple of those criteria for sure. Especially the given up one. Now I'm just going to see how long it takes for someone to catch the vandalism that people have done to artilces on my watchlist that have yet to be fixed (1 was done back in August), or the myriad of other problems. Just as an example, click on the link generated by Template:Disambiguation needed. It goes to a toolserver app that hasn't worked in months. That is only one example of dozens that I could have fixed....months ago when it happened. One of the RFA templates has been broken for months as well and only got fixed in the last week. That is why I am walking away, the world can't trust our content because we can't trust our editors which is just plain stupid....and I can't fix stupid with an edit. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody can, don't blame yourself ;) - what helps me is the occupation in my infobox (and - learned the hard way a while ago - to take nothing, nothing serious) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ps: for the competition who is despised most, look who cropped the image in my infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think I've got him beat at this point. I'm just not sticking around for an Arbcom hearing which is only inevitable at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't already some back alley discussins in IRC and Email about making one with my name on it. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom hearing seems a contradiction in terms. I proved to not understand arbcom at all, and some don't understand me, seems fair. You could make an ad absurdum template like mine. - The arbs voted with no oppose against the ownership of articles, surprise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Morning KumiokoCleanStart. "I think your a jerk" and "Your a jerk and always have been" are not really appropriate comments to make about your fellow editors. I would like to ask you to please not refer to other editors in this way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry just calling it how I see it. He is saying the same about me he's just not being as blunt. Perhaps it would be beneficial for someone other than me to tell him to quite being a jerk? Kumioko (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)